Talk:Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em

message: Do we have any indication as to why Frank's voice changed when season 3 appeared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.115.46 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes i noticed that he got a litter more posher and talked even more posher when he went for interviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaAman (talk • contribs) 
::The introducer on Australian TV the other night (Russell Gilbert) said that Frank's personality changed for season 3, and after seeing the episode (with the political candidate and the Scottish dancing) I've got to agree. He was less accident-prone and childish, and was actually trusted enough to go on a committee. And in my opinion, much less funny. Perhaps these was a change of writers. Or perhaps it was to do with the 5 year break between seasons 2 and 3. I think this should be noted in the article. If not the change in style (which is subjective), then at least the 5 year break. (only 3 years if you count the Christmas specials). Rocksong 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice change in season 3 

message: I think that entire section should be deleted as WP:Original Research. There is one link, but I don't believe that qualifies as a WP:Reliable Source because, despite its official-sounding title, it is an information page maintained by a single Asperger's sufferer. Peter Ballard 03:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so I'm deleting it. Peter Ballard 10:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged subtext" section is Original Research 

message: As an American, I have no idea if the show's title has any particular meaning or relevance.KXL 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title comes from a saying that used to be said here in the UK of accident-prone people and those who were always getting themselves into trouble. You can think of it as expressing pity or sympathy for the mother of the person and their 'misfortune' in having such a son/daughter, e.g., Poor Mrs. Smith, her son XXXX has been in trouble again - I don't know, some mothers do (h)'av(e) (th)'em!. Ian Dunster 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the title mean anything? 

message: I have contacted the BBC for permission to reproduce the lyrics to the lullaby that Frank sang to his daughter in Series 3 episode 1 (Moving House). If they grant permission, I will put the lyrics back on the "Lullaby" page, along with a reference noted from the BBC - otherwise that page can be deleted as the content which is left is already on the main article! I'll leave it a week or so for the BBC to reply. If I have not heard by then, I will assume that they will not be giving permission. PhantomSteve (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: The BBC replied that they do not own the copyright, but Raymond Allen (who is the script writer) does. I am contacting him (by Post) and will get back to this in a few weeks, assuming I hear from him! PhantomSteve (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Permission received from Mr Allen (letter dated 1st June 2009, his ref: RA/SM/09) and lyrics uploaded to wikisource with that reference. PhantomSteve (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged the lullaby into this article, and created a redirect to this article from the other page PhantomSteve (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I have removed the WikiSource link, as the item was deleted. I'm giving up on this one... although I had permission to quote the lyrics, I didn't have Mr Allen's agreement to the licensing required by Wikipedia. It doesn't seem worth the effort of contacting him, sending him 12 pages of licensing terms - after all, although the song is nice, it doesn't particularly add to the story line of Some Mothers, as we already know how close the relationship is between Frank and Jessica. Thanks for the advice people sent me on getting the lyrics up, though! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics for lullaby 

message: Frank Spencer's clumsiness was the subject of a Barron Knights novelty song, "The Ballad of Frank Spencer".  Asat (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barron Knights 

message: @Soundofmusicals: I just happened in on your opinion and request for discussion for which this talk page is provided (and preferable to hasty edit summaries). Since you ask, there seems to be no verification for
*"The final series was written by Allen based on stories by Michael Crawford (not written by Crawford himself as sometimes reported)"
*"Acknowledging the show's success in Australia..."
*"Crawford himself has talked of how he based many of Frank's reactions on those of a young child."
*"Crawford also found it difficult to break out of the public association with the role, despite his later career..."
Perhaps those points should simply be removed, since they are both unsourced and not very relevant to the character of Frank Spencer. Otherwise I agree with your point that the TV series is itself a reliable source for much factual material, though the content we are discussing seems to also stray into interpretation of an OR nature. There are other things to discuss, but I would urge you to restore that unref tag pending a fuller discussion and consensus about the issues. Bjenks (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means remove anything doubtful and/or of marginal relevance as "uncited". Even the odd "cn" tag on a particular point MAY be justified - but only (IMHO) if you feel an important, relevant, and probably factual statement needs verification. For what it's worth the series WAS very popular in Australia - I think this was at least partly because Frank's ineptness fits  the racial stereotype of the "Pom" (English person) in this country. But I certainly don't think this warrants inclusion here, even if we could find a reliable source!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified content 

message: The antithesis of a "reliable source" - in most contexts, at least! TV journalism in general, regardless of the journal, is really in the same category! But on the other hand it IS surely at the very least evidence of itself, as in "it was reported". Otherwise just what CAN we say in an article about a soapie or sitcom? Application of the same "reliability" rules to scientific, artistic, and essentially trivial "popular culture" articles doesn't really work, does it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's evidence the Daily Mail said something. But it's a deprecated source, so the fact that the DM said something is not noteworthy unless someone in an RS noted it saying the thing. In which case we would then be able to use that. And the actual thing being noted is a past WP:CRYSTAL-ball statement that things might happen at some point in the future - then factual claims about things happening on social media, which is definitely a factual statement of the sort the Mail is not a usable source for - David Gerard (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We know for certain that this new series didn't happen - it was probably a rumour that came about as a result of the next paragraph (i.e. the short Sport Relief sketch). I've seen loads of TV and Film articles which have 'rumoured comeback' sections dated from years ago (Blackadder is the perennial). So if anything that demonstrates why this removed section was of no value. Bob talk 14:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I was just concerned we were being dogmatic about deleting anything from the DM on principle. All a matter of context. Perhaps if the original edit summary had been a bit more specific about the comeback being merely "rumoured" I would have got the point? Anyway - above points well taken.  --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail