Talk:Lovejoy

message: http://mindlessones.com/2011/07/23/the-league-of-extraordinary-gentlemen-century-1969-the-annocommentations/
If you go to the above site, and search in page for "Lovejoy" you'll see what I mean.  It is intentional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowyCabal (talk • contribs) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, suggest reinstating previous content removal (vandalism?) under heading "Continued influence in UK comedy and culture" 94.0.82.246 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Further clarification of reasoning, do not understand the previous talk discussion, however Lovejoy did have an enduring influence on UK 'alternative' comedy and culture. Personal opinion granted, but substantiated by the previous verified content.  Not my contribution, and possible merit in rewrite away from bulleted format, but links to other UK comedy should be noted, and is longstanding content in this article.  Anyone have further thoughts on the subject's influence? 94.0.82.246 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't this show that has to have influence it is the trivia that requires it. Be aware that per WP:LONGTIME just because an item was here for any length of time is not a reason for inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the item was here for a long time is not a reason for exclusion. The section does not meet the criteria for trivia.  Please present a credible, substantiated case for the removal of content.  Also please be aware that per WP:TRIVIA, A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Guidelines do not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:BURDEN is on you to justify their inclusion and you have not done so. Also these require secondary sources to establish broad cultural significance and none of them come anywhere close to that. No where is there WP guideline that poorly presented info is a good things. The current consensus is that this section does not belong in this article and you have not presented a single argument that has changed that to this point. MarnetteD | Talk 23:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with WP:BURDEN and not trying to establish broad cultural significance, rather agree with previous citated content in terms of influence in British/UK comedy.  Central tennant being notability durived from the citation of numerous sources.  This is the only section in the article that is remotely citated, however could you refer to WP:CON and suggest further changes to establish new consensus.  No consensus reached on this being poorly presented info, will reinstate if no further suggestions received  94.0.82.246 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Understand your point on broad cultural significance, but don't believe this section was trying to establish this and edit made no reference to this.  Could you substantiate "poorly presented", and "trivia" under "What were you thinking?" WP:WWYT and WP:ZEAL. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Establishing cultural significance is what the section has to do to be included in the article. You are the one who has stated that the section is poorly presented so you will have to answer your own question. I have explained myself quite clearly so there is no response to give to your last sentence. Unless you can comment on content there is little else to repond to. MarnetteD | Talk 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for getting back, references to Lovejoy in UK comedy does not have to have broad cultural significance to merit inclusion as the section does not seek to establish this.  The main article does not establish significance of Lovejoy in any context.  The removed content is with citation, and establishes prevalence of Lovejoy references in other UK comedy.  Unless you can evidence reasons why it does not do this I will lose good will, being opposed by a unsubstantiated respresentation of personal opinion as fact.  I think you have more to contribute so would like you to substantiate "poorly presented", and "trivia" again under "What were you thinking?" WP:WWYT and WP:ZEAL.  If you don't want to discuss I can only revert for a second time. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the section does need to establish significance per the guidelines for trivia pop culture sections. You are ignoring the fact that you are the one who stated that the section is poorly presented. You have presented no proof for WWYT or ZEAL. As an SPA you need to do so. You have provided zero evidence that the current consensus should be overturned. Your choices now are WP:RFCC or WP:DR. Please do not violate WP:3RR again while those other options still exist. MarnetteD | Talk 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  I have not violated WP:3RR I have edited, reverted, reverted well beyond a 24HR period.  There is only me and you and no consensus gained.  WP: WWYT is just a request, familiarity is the key here.  Happy to go for external, if you aren't interested.  Be careful you don't violate WP:3RR while I gain opinion.  94.0.82.246 (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  WP:ZEAL I haven't deleted, I have added.  WP:SPA I have made no mention.  WP:BOOMERANG I have not reported anything, so not sure what you mean.  All I have tried to do is solicit your opinion under WP:WWYT.  Are you trolling me? I am not sure why you refuse to discuss.  94.0.82.246 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No trolling has occurred and you continue to restore against the current consensus. I have discussed time and time again and you have ignored it all. Until you have gained a change of consensus or obtained an outside opinion you should not be reverting. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made seven requests to understand your position under guidance WP:WWYT.  To explain what I am thinking again, I do not believe inclusion of a section on influence of Lovejoy on other British/UK comedy is WP:TRIV.  You have requested reference to establish broad cultural appeal, however inline references already achieve this not about lovejoy, but for comedians such as Vic Reeves, Bob Mortimer and the League of Gentlemen.  However broad cultural appeal of British comedy is not content for article Lovejoy, however it's influences are.  If you would like to understand more please read the related wiki articles on these subjects e.g. League of Gentlemen etc.  You seem to state WP:TRIV, as a defence of your personal subjective opinion of 'trivial', and I believe these are different things.  If these are not your thoughts, please explain.  Consensus has been achieved amongst the ten separate editors that have contributed content and citations, if you would like to change consensus it would help if you provide a list of objections and what you believe would make this content better, so a new consensus can be achieved under WP:CON. In the meantime we will go for WP:RFCC 94.0.82.246 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

text: FYI These edits , , ,  and this  violate WP:CANVASS and may hurt your case when you file your RFCC. The dearth of responses (with the exception of the WP:NPA violation) should go some way to pointing out the notability problems. MarnetteD | Talk 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK comedy and culture 

message: The section is anything but a "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme" so lets break down the problems. 
;Harry Enfield, Vic Reeves mentions
These shows parodies 100's if not 1000's of shows/commercials/films etc. Were the Lovejoy skits any more notable than any of the others that they did? Did any critics comment on them at the time. Are they still discussed or written about today - as either particularly well done bits in the shows or in relation to Lovejoy? If not then they are just indiscriminate information. BTW the source used for Enfield is a dead link and no source is provided at all for either Reeve's mention.
;The Mullet
This is a completely irrelevant sentence and the fact that McShane wore the haistyle at times has no "influence on UK comedy or culture". The hairstyle was around long before this show and will be long after.
;Alan Moore
No source is provided that Moore was referencing this show or the film. The phrase "it would appear" shows that guess work is involved and that violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. 
;Scary Go Round
At least a source is shown but a) it is self published and b) an online comic strip - now defunct - with a limited readership is not really notable. Did any outside source comment on the storylines relationship to the TV series?
;Knowing Me...
Lovejoy is mentioned briefly in one sentence. In terms of the length of the skit the Darling Buds of May is mentioned far more often and is more important to the laughs that are being aimed for. Not really an "influence on UK comedy or culture".
;Ipswich Town supporters
This one is nothing but WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS and it raises more questions than it answers.
#No evidence is provided that N City fans call them bin men. If they did do they still?
#For the sake of argument lets say that they did. The term "bin men" was around for a decades before this episode aired. A WP:RS would need to be provided that they started calling them this because of the Lovejoy episode. 
#When did they start calling them this? If they were using the term before Jan 1991 (when the episode aired) then it can't be because of the episode. Indeed if the term was used before '91 it is more likely that the writers and costumers had Clarke wear the hat because of an existing situation. But that is just an OR guess on my part.
As it currently stands the section is just an indiscriminate list of non-notable non-encyclopedic  information. As stated before your options now are WP:RFCC or WP:DR. You could also ask for input - in a neutrally worded message - from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. You should also be aware that there are other places on the web where you can post this kind of thing if you want to share it with others. A blog or Facebook page for instance. Please do not restore the list without pursuing the options given first. MarnetteD | Talk 07:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break for convenience

message: I always thought Tinker was Lovejoy's barker. Never heard of 'picker'. Cormullion (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. On one hand you are quite right the term picker is not used in the TV series (which I have rewatched in the last year) or in the books (that I can remember though its been more than a few years since I read them. On the other hand I am not sure that Barker (occupation) is the right term either - at least as described in the wikiarticle for the term. I am pretty sure that Lovejoy's monologues use some term for him so if someone can check with the books or DVDs please change it with my thanks (sorry my schedule is a bit busy at the moment or I would do it) in the meantime we might remove that section until better info is available. I will leave it up to you Cormullion. MarnetteD | Talk 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  the OED gives 'barker' as 'antique shop tout' as well as 'fairground shout-y person', which is close enough to what I think Tinker probably does. Anyway, I'll make the edit. Cormullion (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing the extra research. Barker is used in the series too as I pulled the first season off the shelf last night and heard it but didn't get back here to edit before heading to sleep. I noted your edit summary about the TV show and, while you are right for the most part, I do enjoy that first season. Many of the stories come from the books and the Lovejoy v Gimbert byplay is fun and I also enjoyed seeing Venice in the season ending two parter. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 12:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The casting was good, but I think they lost the spirit of the books and I couldn't enjoy it... One day perhaps I'll do some work on the novels' wikipedia page Cormullion (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barker, not picker? 

message: An image used in this article, File:Lovejoy-cast.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Lovejoy-cast.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: *Whatever happened to... - JuneGloom  Talk 23:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Loving Joy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Loving Joy" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]