Talk:Karen Dotrice

message: Updated: My sincere thanks to Marknew (talk) for the recognition as a Good Article, and to Raul654 (talk) for subsequent Featured Article honors. This article didn't even exist before 12 December 2005, and these honors could not have been achieved without the hard work of and/or persistent motivation from JoaoRicardo (talk), AndyZ (talk), Mikkerpikker (talk), Rossrs (talk), Monicasdude (talk), Wackymacs (talk) and Johnleemk (talk). Thanks as well to Banes (talk), Azathar (talk), Gflores (talk), Staxringold (talk) and Extraordinary Machine (talk) for their fac votes. I (and others, no doubt) will continue to improve on this article where possible. RadioKirk talk to me 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Good Article tag now that Featured Article status has been achieved; all Featured Articles are good articles, so we don't need a separate Good Article box. Well done for achieving FA status in such a (comparatively) short period of time! --Marknew 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, and thanks again to everyone who helped! RadioKirk talk to me 13:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now a [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article]] :D 

message: I noticed a lot of the years are linked. This guideline suggests not to link individual years. However, some people disagree with it, so I'm asking first if the article should keep the links. Honestly, I don't think a lot of the links are that helpful and just add clutter. Comments? Gflores Talk 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In most cases, I've tried to link to pages that people might be interested in following, such as 1978, as opposed to simply linking the year. Otherwise, I've followed what I've seen in other articles: The first instance is linked, the rest are not. Personally, neither choice would bother me. (Edit: Unless relevant to the article, the links are gone.) RadioKirk talk to me 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: linking years

message: the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - this article shall remain Featured for many years to come! --Marknew 11:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Filmography wrong way round

message: Hi, I notice that you have been piping nationality links to the "X people" articles, eg. Scottish. Having worked on thousands of biog articles, primarily European and North American (but also a fair few Antipodean), I can say without hesitation that the overwhelming consensus is to pipe thus:
*Scottish
*French
*American
*Mexican
*Swedish
If this is doubted in any way, perhaps we could consult the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography? (Apart from anything else, those "X people" articles are utterly, utterly appalling rubbish in my experience: full of POV, edit warring, AFD's and many other such delights: probably because they tend to focus on pseudo-ethnicity theories, rather than civil society, which is the strength of the country articles.) --Mais oui! 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was discussed months ago; anyway, if there are problems with the "x people" articles, we should fix those articles, rather than pipe a link to an article which does not illuminate the intent of the text. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit: Is there a link to this "overwhelming consensus" and, perhaps, why the issue wasn't mentioned during this article's FAC? RadioKirk (u|t|c)
----
That happened after i tried following your advice with other articles - it's very frustrating PMA 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm... interesting... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piping links for nationality 

message: The Channel Islands aren't part of the UK. To quote the article on the Channel Islands:
 The Channel Islands fall into two separate self-governing Bailiwicks.
 Both the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey are British
 crown dependencies, but neither is part of the United Kingdom.
--Patteroast 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki cannot cite itself; if you have a published, reliable source, feel free to note it in your edit summary if you remove the data. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just edited this, as per the Encyclopaedia Britannica article: "The islands are dependencies of the British crown (and not strictly part of the United Kingdom)". Iain 01:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let it stand, but is there a link that I don't have to pay for, in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:V? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will HM Government do? :-) http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp --Marknew 13:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Brittania is being cited here as a reputable secondary source.  Many such have to be be paid for (e.g. textbooks and journals).  However, if the subject isn't one you know much about and you would like to access a source for free, try the CIA world factbook article on Guernsey, which includes the following: The islands were the only British soil occupied by German troops in World War II. Guernsey is a British crown dependency, but is not part of the UK.. Countersubject 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those both are perfect. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - "British" covers more than just the UK. I think thhat British Isles covers the Channel Islands. -- Beardo 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel Islands, UK? 

message: I dunno if this has been brought up before, but the lead in section seems extremely short, by featured article standards (see Katie Holmes, James T. Aubrey, Jr., etc. at Wikipedia:Featured articles). Is there anything else at all that can be added, even if it's just repeated info? Right now, it looks a little weak. Axem Titanium 02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current lead actually resulted from the WP:FA process. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, per the Main Page, I added a line. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead in 

message: Dotrice (dō-'trēs)
This needs to be changed to IPA. --Kjoonlee 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free; I never got around to looking it up. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, I can't be sure what dō-'trēs should sound like, because I only know IPA. ;) --Kjoonlee 06:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the macron means to pronounce the vowel like the letter itself... /dəʊˈtriːs/ ([dəʊˈtʰɹiːs] ?) or something, methinks -- Amorette 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good guess, but I think it would be better if there were an audio/video recording on the web somewhere that can be used to verify the transcription. --Kjoonlee 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know how "Dotrice" is pronounced, but I have only ever heard /dəˈtriːs/. Pronunciation of the first syllable with a long o looks like an Americanised pronunciation to me — surely, as the actress is British (in as much as she was born in the British Isles), a UK English pronunciation should be given, unless, of course, the first syllable is indeed pronounced with a long o. If this is the case, the UK English vowel would indeed be /əʊ/ and /dəʊˈtriːs/ would be appropriate (/dəʊˈtʰɹiːs/ is more accurate, but unnecessarily precise). Making this change. — Paul G 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, /dəʊ/ is quite British already, as Americans tend to pronounce that as /doʊ/ instead... but anyway, I think /dəʊ/ is a more carefully articulated version than /də/ and it doesn't have to sound long (cf. a word such as "domain") -- Amorette 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But how can we be sure  is valid? Speculation would count as OR/unverifiable info and would have to be removed per WP:NOR and WP:V. --Kjoonlee 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's doh-TREESE; she says so herself in the audio commentary on the cited DVD. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here (link removed) is an audio file I lifted from the audio commentary. As soon as someone acknowledges the pronunciation, please reply so I can remove this link. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like  to me. --Kjoonlee 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting, though; it's somewhere between a schwa and a long o... :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's phonetically short and unstressed, I think a schwa would be safe. :> --Kjoonlee 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If those are the only two options, I tend to agree. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]] 

message: I have just realised there is a glaring mistake in the article....it was her sister Michelle who played Betty in "Some Mother's Do Ave Em" and not Karen. Can you fix this, please?Luckyles 11:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: Apparently, it's been removed... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Betty

message: There appears to be some "jive" in one of the later sentences. I don't know what the original should be; perhaps an Admin can do a rollback?LessHeard vanU 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear your cache; this has long since been removed... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in television section 

message: I don't think that this article deserves to be a featured article, although it's pretty good. It should be a good article. It's too short, and the featured article discussion was engaged by only a few people.
Somebody made an excuse by saying that what the article lacks should not be an issue as much as what the article has, but the article doesn't have anything. (Wikimachine 23:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue only that there is a sufficient number of people who disagree. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured status 

message: It's innacurate to link from 'British' in the intro to the United Kingdom.  To summarise the various tedious discussions above: KD is from Guernsey, one of the Channel Islands; the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom (they are Crown Dependencies), but are considered British, and their citizens have British Citizenship.  It's therefore better to link to Briton, British or British Islands. I sincerely hope this stands by way of explanation.  If anyone wants references, see those cited above and in the various Wikipedia articles, e.g. Channel Islands, Guernsey, United Kingdom, British Islands, British Nationality Law, Crown Dependencies... (yawn).  And please, cut down on the Wikipedian acronyms (you know who you are!). Countersubject 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed back to English. Afterall she grew up in England, her mother is English. To put British surely because she was born in Guernsey seems over the top. Indeed, if being born in Guernsey means a lot to her then we have to put "is a Guernsey actress". --Berks105 13:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since my research has come up wanting, I'm out of this one—and staying that way... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: She is British, as a matter of fact. British comprehends all the parts of the British Islands, and that's the name of the citizenship of their various peoples.  It's therefore an appropriate label in the intro for someone whose identity derives from both Guernsey and England.  The detail can then be given in the body of the article (as it is).  Countersubject 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just seen Berks105's edit summary, which says that KD's parents are English.  That's only half true.  The clue is in the anglo-french surname: Roy Dotrice is a Guernseyman. Also, I agree that we shouldn't link to the UK, of which England is a part but Guernsey isn't.  Hence my preference for British.  Countersubject 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever she is, the link should not be to to the British article, as that is an article describing the ambiguity of the term.  Maybe Briton is a better article, or British nationality law. -- Jeff3000 04:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a shame that Countersubject is unwillingly to even consider comprising. You are just assuming you are write. The fact is she has lived in England since a young age, and I think that English or "Guernsey born English" are preferable to the very unspecific British. I feel that if Karen Dotrice was surnamed MacDonald and had a Scottish accent you would have no problem in putting Scottish, but as she's English you think its acceptable to put British. It the usual prejudice of many people on Wikipeida. You need to look above the legality of nationality, but as you seem unwillingly to comprise, you evidentaly cant do that. --Berks105 10:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no prejudice here.  The extent to which KD is an English or Guernsey woman is arguable.  That she's British is verifiable, which is what we aim for in Wikipedia.  It's therefore appropriate to introduce her as British, then cover the fact that she was born in Guernsey of a Guernsey father and English mother, but has lived most of her life in England, in the body of the article.  And by the way, the 'Macdonald' analogy doesn't work in quite the way you intend.  Dotrice isn't an English name - it's anglo-french, reflecting the heritage of the Channel Islands. Countersubject 11:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't saying Dotrice is an English name, but the fact is if she spoke with a Scottish accent and had grown up in Scotland people would insist she was Scottish. But as she grew up in England and has an English accent, people insist she's British. Thats prejudice. But, I will leave this, if I ever find a source where she says she English I will come back and change it. --Berks105 11:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not prejudice, but due respect for the complication of the matter, and for her non-English birth and heritage.  If her surname were 'Smith', and she'd been born in England of an English father and Scottish mother, then grown up in Scotland ... Countersubject 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to United Kingdom or Briton/British 

message: I find this peripheral and pretty much irrelevant to Ms. Dotrice; comments? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's edit re [[Charles Laughton]]

message: In the introduction it states that Dotrice left show business in 1984, but in the infobox it says that she has been active until the present day. This appears to be ambiguous, and may need to be rewritten. Madeinsane (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years Active 

message: For some reason the photo of Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber that was in the info box of this article is not showing. Please can someone fix this problem or add another photo. Thanks JoseySmith (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs photo

message: This was asked years ago, prior to numerous updates, so I'll posit: I'm an American trying to write into an article about a British actor. Anyone wish to review this for the proper flavour? —ATinySliver | talk to me 08:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention Brits!

message: So, when an artist uses your work for their Web site, is it a sign of validation or of laziness? xDDD —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 00:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Web site

message: Substituted at 20:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment