Jump to content

Talk:Downton Abbey/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Might I make a proposal

The article has become far to long and complicated making its encyclopedic value diminished, its load time lengthy and there is far too much in one article for the average reader. I am going to go through the article and see where items can be merged into other, existing articles and compare to other television series articles to see how the formatting and separations are done. My belief is that since this is main article for Downton Abbey (season 1), Downton Abbey (season 2), Downton Abbey (season 3), Downton Abbey (season 4), Downton Abbey (season 5) and eventually Downton Abbey (season 6) along with a host of other articles, we may want to create Downton Abbey (disambiguation).

One other thing...we can use some screen captures from the series as non free images as long as they follow all of Wikipedia's policies and procedures as well as the non free content criteria. I don't suggest there be a lot of uploads because, should it be uploaded incorrectly, it will just get deleted and someone should really try to look for the best images that can be used on multiple articles and perhaps benefit the articles without images of actors.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Any change I make will have an edit summary to explain and I will stick strictly to MOS and guidelines. Some content may need drastic trimming such as the cast section. Generally the cast list is not in tables (prose is actually suggested) but a simple list will suffice. It is also too detailed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, so the cast list is also doubled with a character list. To be honest, I don't think that should be on this page but I will look into it. I believe the characters are a part of the plot so to begin with I will move the character table into the proper section.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove the tables in the "Cast" section just yet; I've seen this sort of table in other popular tv shows articles (For example, The Walking Dead). But I think the character table in the "Series Overview" can definitely go. (The only thing that might need to be integrated into the Cast section is the little "†" signs.)—Msmarmalade (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
And maybe some of the name information e.g. "Cora Crawley (née Levinson), Countess of Grantham" vs "Cora Crawley, Countess of Grantham"—Msmarmalade (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Lets look at the FA articles and aim towards those. Tables do not belong in the plot section for sure and in a caste section it might be best covered in a bulleted list or simple prose. I have not even started that yet. I will compare other articles of this nature. Off the top of my head, they should be collapsed to start with.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Changes

I am going to trim off redundant content on the performers/actors. I trust nothing will be lost completely as any main articles at this point would be the actor articles, but we seriously do not need tables with the information doubled up. I am going to do this in three stages. First. Deleting the tables completely, reducing everything in the main cast down to a bulleted list that I will (second) add a few lines of text describing the characters. I will save as much descriptive text as possible but I am going to be using reliable sources to avoid any perception of original research as this will be extensive. Second. I am going to add a family tree for the Crawley family and departmentalize the staff sections. What this does is use the "plot overview" to go into the details of the characters slightly (perhaps prose is better than a bulleted list for this reason) and use a family tree to illustrate the intricate family relationships that is center in the ongoing arch of every seasons and every episodes storyline. Genealogy is probably an excellent way to demonstrate a major part of the show in a small illustration using wikimark up like this:

{{Downton Abbey family tree}}


Just one adjustment needed. In Season 3 Episode 9 (the Christmas Special) it clearly states that Violet Crawley The Dowager Countess of Grantham was SISTER to Lady Flintshire Susan MacClare's Mother. Therefor unless this unknown Father's name was Roberta the Sibling lines show that Susan's Father was the one related to Violet!! (Susan and Violet are walking together when the statement claiming the above statement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.23.204 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That was a good catch and only now got changed from a recent debate. Sorry about that.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot content not based off primary source

Only the primary source, the film or television production, can be used for plot descriptions. Character descriptions cannot contain "inside" information that is not depicted on screen. Just because it is in the script, does not mean it was depicted. The script is not the primary source, the final production is. All birth dating from the family tree has been removed for the moment so that a discussion can begin to determine what, if any, birth dating should be mentioned in the plot/character descriptions and family tree. The show itself depicts a hereditary family line, dependent on an heir to continue their family line into the future. With no male heir, the plot centers on Mary marrying one of the known heirs. Historic dating aside, even Patrick Crawley's death is left more than a little in doubt.

So, what if any dating should be mentioned in the plot/character descriptions as well as the family tree?

Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we use canon information, correct? Thus the scripts would count as Julian Fellowes, who provides WORD OF GOD and wrote the scripts, would be the highest tier of canon. Unless, of course, the show says differently. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No. We do not use canon information. We use real world perspective of the primary source.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
There are many subjects on Wikipedia where there is a large fanbase such as The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Game of Thrones. Many times fans will attempt to edit these articles from their perspective as loyal and dedicated "fans". But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has guidelines and policy about the addition of content, even content based on a fictitious plotline. It isn't that all of your contributions were "incorrect" but the majority did not improve the template. I admit, we all here missed the Roberta line going to unknown and not Roberta. That was my mistake and if you look above, someone pointed it out earlier. If you feel strongly about something, lets discuss it and try to come to a consensus of editors as to what is notable enough from what is depicted in the production to add to the plot/character and family tree summaries.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of a wiki - and something you evidently have no grasped by the looks of things - is to provide canon information. Canon information is

This is Wikipedia. I gave you links to look through to familiarize how Wikipedia works. If you take some time you will see that wikis are not a good example to compare.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the point of Wikipedia is to provide canon information about the show. The information I provided is canon. Also... where are these links? DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, the point of Wikipedia is to provide canon information about the show" No, Wikipedia is not for that use. You now have your own talk page. Look at the top of the page to the right where you see your username with a grey "0". Next to that is the word "Talk". Click that. It is your talk page. If you receive a message that O may be red now and be "2" or "3" by now. Here is a direct link: User talk:DowntonAbbeyFan.
Also you should read through; WP:INUNIVERSE about the use of such "canon" information. Being the intent of the writer means it might be something to mention in the "production section" as we use WP:Real world perspective because the narrative of the primary source is the only plot.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Basically this falls under:

Fictography – an article or section about a fictional character written like a biography, placing, for example, undue emphasis on titles or birthdates despite their being unimportant to the plot or interpretation.

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
You will note that much of the article has been cleaned up as much as possible to maintain the B rating and improve it enough to become a GA (Good Article) article or even FA (Featured article) In order to do this we must write from a real world perspective and use source material in the proper location when appropriate. One article we have that suffers greatly from this is: List of Downton Abbey characters.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

How does the page suffer? It looks perfectly fine too me except for a few D.O.Bs that I had to change because they were wrong.

I've just read through the things you suggested and... that basically backs up what I said: primary sources are the show. Secondary sources - but still VALID sources - are (and I quote) "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work: the author or creator". This would be the scripts as they are written by the author/creator of the show. Fictography. Right, got it. Unfortunately, the birthdates are not unimportant; Violet, for example, is trying to get Mary married off before she gets too old... so fictography doesn't apply here. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have made a good faith attempt to explain this to you. Please take some time to read more. Wikipedia does not have a great tolerance for in universe perspective or trying to use the authors intent that did not make it to the screen in the plot portions of the summary. Sourced author intent can be discussed in the proper section which is the production section. I hope you do take time to learn how this works because you took time to register and discuss so you clearly want to collaborate. But Wikipedia is not a fan based wiki and we require editors to adhere to guidelines, policy and bright line rules. I believe I have provided a good start with the editor retention welcome. We took a good deal of time to develop what new editors need to know when they first register and much of what is there are my words.....so, I mean it when I say, I hope you eventually understand Wikipedia's core values.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be best if I leave. I can already see that you and I have conflicting ways that we believe this should be done - I'm stubborn and won't give up until I've been proven right and been given a satisfactory apology by the people in the wrong and I don't believe that's conducive here - and you believe it should be done differently. Thus, I shall leave to avoid anymore arguments; I'll go back to somewhere that I know my edits will be accepted and allowed. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are unable to edit within the guidelines and policies that have been established, what is considered the consensus of the overall community of editors over a very long period, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. This is not uncommon when fans used to editing fan based sites and wikis attempt to edit Wikipedia in the same manner. Also, on Wikipedia, discussion is an important part of how disputes are settled. Many times discussion turns to debate and debate becomes heated but that is the nature of discussion when one is new and refuses to accept "good faith" advise. Should you choose to stay and edit, and you should try it, not adhering to guidelines and policy or other bright line rules could eventually lead to a block. Keep your account and edit non controversial issues that are not related to a fan based subject for a while to get a perspective of how Wikipedia works. Editing with others is not always easy, but it is fun even if we have to compromise, lose and debate or learn an important lesson. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I usually find that yelling, blocking those who disagree with you (usually because they're wrong, especially if it's a subject you're very into!) and shoving about 3 pieces of evidence down their throats usually works to get along with people. It worked on the wiki when we had an annoying person there! DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Tapestries decorating Downton Abbey staircase

Presumably these are authentic in Highclere Castle. But does anyone know the details of their production as to when and where? Masalai (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Family tree is wrong - Sybil was the youngest

The family tree states that Sybil was born 1889, Mary in 1892, and Edith in 1894. Sybil was the youngest - her birth year would be more like 1899. The tree also does not include Edith's daughter. I cannot figure out how to edit the tree - can someone fix this mistake? Thanks.MisterZed (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The year 1895 is sourced here. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Family tree corrected. Thank you for catching the mistake. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you also add Edith's daughter to the tree? MisterZed (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I will leave that for others, such as User:Mark Miller, who are more skilled with such charting, to do. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes. I'll fix now. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note about Marigold's last name. According to the plot, when Edith takes her daughter back from the Drews, she presents a valid copy of a Geneva, Switzerland birth certificate. The laws in most European nations was similar at this time in these regards and may still be in effect. The last name of the child would be that of their legal parent. Since Edith did not marry Michael Gregson and had to have the child away from society in England in another country, where no one would recognize her, they would have listed the known father, checked a box or hand wrote the terminology of "illegitimate" and given the child the last name of Crawley in this case.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the edit – and the explanation! Hertz1888 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Now, this is purely speculation and I would indeed need to check the laws of the time however, I can say that a similar situation is part of a family tree I have researched and is only a couple of years off from this date. Locations differ greatly, but situations are indeed similar, so I feel confident this will be the likely choice of writers if mentioned at all, but we should at least allow this logic to remain until disputed by plot details of the upcoming season or someone can point out a different reasoning for the Gregson name.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The surname would be whatever Mr Drewe made it up to be; he and Margie took Marigold in and he passed her off as a daughter of a late friend of his. Marigold was, until Edith took her back, the child of one of Mr Drewe's friends, so Marigold's surname could be anything from Smith to Boyzitbig. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. She had the birth certificate made before she made the deal with Drewe and there was no "friend" just a story that was made up. Are we watching the same production? The name of record would be from birth and the way it would be added to a tree is the name inherited from the mother or the eventual married name.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Wrong. Edith cannot legally acknowledge Marigold; it would be a laughing stock for her. Thus, the fake friend that Drewe made up - and whatever surname he gave to said fake friend - would be the one that Marigold would have been BAPTISED UNDER (As Margie mentions that the Drewes did baptize Marigold). Thus the surname is neither Gregson or Crawley. It is whatever the hell the surname of the fake friend was that Mr Drewe made up. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion of the primary source material as presented. The character of Edith did indeed legally acknowledge "Marigold" by having a Birth Certificate made at the birth of her daughter in Switzerland...where no one knew her. Even the character of Mr. Drewe states how brave she was for doing so. When Mrs. Drew rips up the copy she was presented, Edith tells her she has more. Christening information is irrelevant as Marigold was not brought up by the Drewes. We were several episodes in with Marigold living in the nursery and whatever "made up" name (never even hinted at in the plot by the way) would not be on the family tree because everyone knows she is the actual daughter of Edith now but Mary. Legally, she would a Crawly. But the script in the next season could well state that Edith lied and gave the child Gregsons last name. Al we have to go by are the facts depicted. Edith has a legal document that proves she is Marigold's mother. The fact is, if it said Gregson, Mrs Drew would have made a point to say the name wasn't even her last name. Condense this down and it would almost have to be Crawley. --Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yet the Drewe's baptized Marigold and chose the name of Marigold in the first place. This implies that she'd have taken her fake!father's surname and is Marigold [whatever her fake father's surname is] and that yes, legally she is Marigold Crawley... but she's not acknowledged as that anywhere as it's still a family secret and not publically know.

Thus, yes, legally, Marigold is, indeed, Marigold Crawley (as you said, Edith has the birth certificates!) but publically, until illegitimacy becomes less of an "OMG! A BASTARD CHILD!" thing, she'd be known as whatever surname Mr Drewe invented. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Tree needs adding too; in Denker's first episode, Violet mentions her mother. She says something about "my mother's maid gave me this [e.g. the teapot she's talking about] on my wedding". Also, Robert has an aunt who, in 1860, "married a Gordon". DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Samantha Bond

As a casual reader of this page I've noticed that Samantha Bond has been removed from the cast list on at least 2 occasions, without explanation. Eagleash (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

References are going dead, need wayback machine perhaps? Showed that program was aired by various providers

Most of the dead links I noticed just now had linked to a listing of the moment proving that Downton Abbey was aired by that provider. Now the provider displays the programs now available, as is logical. So, the site is there, but not the information or exact link on site first used. Is there a bot for that?  :-) Mainly, I mean, do not delete the citation until the bot can try, or someone can try who is more skilled than I am at finding the site as it once existed. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have managed to get archived URLs for all but 2 of the links marked as dead. Keith D (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Downton Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition to Reception section

AlexTheWhovian, I understand your argument as per WP:TVINTL, however I disagree. Yes, "editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries, through prose form" and so it could be argued that my original edit did not adhere to this, however I've since moved it to the Reception section of the article, where WP:TVRECEPTION applies. Here the section ends with "As Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia, it would also be beneficial to the article to find international reception." This I have provided with a reputable source, and paraphrased. Therefore I don't understand why you continue to undo my edit, so it would be helpful to understand your stance without the limit of the edit summary box. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Simply because WP:TVRECEPTION does not refer to only using English-speaking countries as WP:TVINTL does, it does not instantly make the latter section null and void. Every section of MOS:TV affects and applies to every other section. Also given that it was in regards to how many viewers the series had, it did not belong in the Reception section either, as this is for the reception of the series, not the viewership levels. That belongs in Broadcast. I'll be bringing this issue up on the MOS:TV talk page, so that "loopholes" like this cannot be exploited further. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't making myself clear. I'm not trying to find some loophole or anything, I'm just applying common sense. My edit added information to the article that was noteworthy and referenced. Analysing how the television show was received is for the Reception section, and my edit mentions how the series was received in several countries. I don't understand why only English-speaking countries can be mentioned, so if you're going to mention Wikipedia guidelines, I'd refer you to WP:IAR. I'm not trying to get out of anything but I feel like these rules you're citing are preventing the improvement of this article. I'm on board for requesting comments if you feel we're at an impasse. SamWilson989 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the English-language based server, hence the necessity for only English-speaking countries to be listed; other countries have their own servers and their own languages. Stating that the series has high viewership levels in certain countries is not detailing an analysis of how the series was received, as this would explain whether the series was approved of or not, rather than just how many people watched it. Also personally, I ignore all usages of WP:IAR, as that's simply a way to get around everything. For other editors reading this discussion, it is located at WT:MOSTV. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Just because I speak English, I am not going to fail to be interested by information on other countries. We have entire sections of the English Wikipedia dedicated to events entirely within other countries and histories of other countries. This bonkers rule needs to be ignored in this case, and possibly changed at the MoS, hence I entered the discussion over there. As the reception section of the MoS discusses the ratings of the TV series, including audience size, a program being the most-watched is certainly relevant and noteworthy and therefore should be added if a source can be found, which has happened. I propose with leave the discussion and the article here until the discussion of the MoS rules themselves has been concluded. SamWilson989 (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

DVD Series Six

Very odd that the article has nothing to say about the availability of Series Six on DVD. Have been distributed by PBS as fund raising bonus item for some time now in US.-71.174.188.32 (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 

www.shoppbs.org › Home › Shop Our Collections
Shop PBS
Masterpiece: Downton Abbey Season 6 (UK Edition) DVD - shopPBS.org ...
Downton Abbey Season 6 DVD (UK Edition) + The Ultimate Collection CD  with ...

Region: Region 1
Number of discs: 3
Studio: PBS
DVD Release Date: January 26, 2016
Run Time: 540 minutes
ASIN: B014E1TJV6
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: 
#5 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#1 in Movies & TV > DVD > Drama

"we still have the Christmas Special show to air at the end of next month so everyone is waiting in suspense for the final conclusion. Incidentally if you are impatient to see the last series, although the UK issue is released this month, that will not contain the 2015 Christmas Special whereas the later North American release will."

"Once the Daily Mail article lied about the reasons for the PBS editing, and Downton Abbey became so popular in the US that PBS was able to attract high quality funding, they not only aired the episodes as they did in the UK, but sometimes added scenes that weren't shown on ITV (since ITV airs commercials and has to cut things to fit around them).

"PBS now stamps their Downton Abbey DVDs "UK Version" because people are still passing around the story that they cut the show up liberally. The ironic part is that by only releasing the ITV versions on DVD, you'll never get to see the extra PBS scenes unless you record them as they air." -71.174.188.32 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Hoppe: Our stations depend on our breaks between programs for connecting with their local audience and doing promotion, so we have set lengths for PBS hours, which is actually the longest hour in television: 56 minutes and 46 seconds. And that’s all content." -71.174.188.32 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Complete series 1-6 is out on DVD in Australia - I have a copy. Wikiain (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Downton Abbey is not a part American production and here's why...

The claim that American production companies 'pumped cash into project' is not a viable or sufficient justification to claim that the show is a joint British-American venture. Rather controversially, it is like saying that the Turnberry golf resort (Ayrshire, Scotland) is American just because the Trump Organisation fund and own it. Both, Downton Abbey (first produced 2010) and the Turnberry golf resort (established 1906) were well established British entities before American funding came in.

Further justifying my case, all NBC actually done was injected money into the production, primarily for distributional and licensing purposes within the US (which went mainly to PBS for to add ). All production was done in the UK; consisting mainly of a British production and acting team. The 'American' side of production is actually negligible as very little creative or historical input was put forward by any of the American based production companies involved. This is due to the fact the show was based on purely British historical events (with some reference and context to other foreign affairs, such as the Beer Hall Putsch), culture and language meaning that it would have been hard for American production companies to really add anything.

I would also like to make clear that 'Masterpiece' is not a production company and is a series of dramas produced by WGBH Boston. Downton Abbey was purely featured within the series for American viewers. I feel this is where some people get mistaken for the show being a joint American production, as the article is actually extremely misleading by saying that it was co-produced by 'Masterpiece'. (This has now been edited) Please refer to the Masterpiece wikipedia page for proof.

In conclusion, due to the negligible creative and historical input by the American production companies and the lack of other evidence to back up the claim that the production was part American; the article should stay as a 'British historical period drama'.

Thank you for your time and I hope you take my points into consideration when making future edits to this page regarding the issue. --Jack Answers (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Basically, this comes down to "says you." Where are your sources? I have one unimpeachable source: the credits, which name Masterpiece (the production entity, not the show) and Rebecca Eaton as production company and executive producer. The British producers actively pursued Masterpiece and Eaton as producers for Downton; that is documented in her book. NBC has no connection to PBS; NBC Universal owns Carnival Films or some stake in it, I believe, although I'd have to double-check that. Meanwhile, your golf analogy is anything but analogous. Moreover, once you are reverted, you stop reverting and discuss. --Drmargi (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Jack Answers Drmargi I would have to agree with Jack here. just because Rebecca Eaton produced the show doesn't automatically make the show British-American. Many films and tv shows would eventually wind up with a foreign production yet remain the origin of said country. (N0n3up (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC))
Country of origin is established by production company locales in no small part. You can tap dance around that all you care to but WGBH/Masterpiece and NBC Universal are American companies actively involved in the production of Downton Abbey. This is increasingly commonplace, particularly with these high-budget productions. Both Poldark and Victoria, which started on Sunday, along with Sherlock are co-productions with WGBH, and there are a fair number with BBC America. It's the way forward for high-cost programming. --Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Crown (TV series)#British or American-British?. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Viking River Cruises

About to 'wheelwar', that is revert for a third time, so I'm placing the rationale here. An old, previously undebated, WP:RS link [1] stated that Downton Abbey was supported early on (2012 piece referring to 'last year') by Viking River Cruises underwriting 'Masterpiece' on PBS.

'It also brought a new corporate sponsor in luxury river cruise company Viking River Cruises, which approached WGBH Boston last year about underwriting Masterpiece after it polled its clients about their TV-viewing habits. Viking caters to affluent baby boomers over the age of 55, who responded that several of Masterpiece’s programs, including Downton Abbey, were among their favorites.'

The page itself - that is suddenly being deleted - sums it up as:

'with some financing by Viking River Cruises for Masterpiece'.

It may not need to be in the lede, but to remove it entirely is as convincing as Lady Mary enlisting her mother, Cora, & Lady's Maid, Anna, to moving the recently stiff, still warm, body of Kemal Pamuk, from the Spinster to Bachelor wing & pretending it didn't happen.

Why fear the truth fragile butterflies? AnonNep (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The series would not get made without Masterpiece/US finding oh fragile one. Cherry picking something from 4 years ago has no impact on the current sourcing. MarnetteD|Talk 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
But this page is talking about how it got past the first season. Who backed it then, not now? Optimistic revisionism isn't fact. How did Downton become a pilot, then to a season, then to a multi-season worldwide hit. It appears you want to delete anything that suggests Downton wasn't an 'OMG!' fancrazy hit from episode one. That kind of revisionism isn't only not supported by the facts, the 'fancrazy' aspect - which requires facts are denied & deleted - is IMHO seriously creepy. (And has no place here at Wikipedia). AnonNep (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Twobells used an old source and has mis-interpreted it. Masterpiece (not Downton) has private donors and a corporate underwriter because PBS is public (i.e. viewer supported) television. For years, the underwriter was Mobil Oil. For several years prior to 2012, it was Ralph Lauren, now it's Viking River Cruises. Viking has no direct involvement in Downton; Twobells' edit mis-represented the relationship because he used one vague source that doesn't fully explain how Masterpiece's funding and role as a producer of British productions (with both the BBC and ITV) works. Consequently, his edit, which is designed to reduce the American role in the production of Downton, not add factual information, but one of a number of attempts to remove factual information framed through his highly nationalistic lens.
Masterpiece exists as two entities: the program and the producer. VRC, along with high-dollar donors (such as Donald and Darlene Shiley, or Conrad Prebys and Debbie Turner) and we ordinary subscribers fund Masterpiece. Rebecca Eaton (a named executive producer in the DA credits) and her team determine which productions Masterpiece the producer will fund, and broadcast on Masterpiece the program. Eaton recently wrote a book on the process, and discusses how close they came to passing on Downton because they had just begun producing a remake of Upstairs Downstairs with the BBC. But Fellowes and Graham Neame came to her and persuaded her that this was something special that couldn't be made without PBS, and Masterpiece signed on. That's very, very different from VRC providing some funding.
Eaton is actively involved in the productions Masterpiece co-produces, was onstage alongside Vertue, Moffat and Gatiss when "The Abominable Bride" won an Emmy as well as alongside Fellowes, Neame et. al when Downton was awarded an honorary BAFTA recently, and is actively involved in creative decisions, as came clear when the handling of a controversial plot point was determined in the latest series of its co-production of Poldark. Moreover, Downton is also produced by NBC Universal, which is also American, so there is more American involvement than a little funding from VRC. Regardless, it's a long, long way from what Twobells added to the article, which I hope you can see is factually inaccurate. --Drmargi (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Once again, this isn't new. Regardless of PBS/Masterpiece base funding from here to eternity, who was it when Downton went from 'maybe' to 'definite'? Look at the source: (American dates style) '02.15.12' & referring to the funding 'last year' specifically noting who made it possible. Wikipedia isn't a fan Wiki & shouldn't delete Viking River Cruises documented supported just because it may be embarrassing to some after the fact.
AnonNep (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
And once again, Masterpiece co-produced and Masterpiece broadcast Downton Abbey for its entire run. Ralph Lauren was the Masterpiece corporate underwriter, and thus one of its sources of funding, through the first two series; from 2012 (S3) forward, Viking River Cruises became its corporate underwriter, none of which has anything directly to do with Downton Abbey. Masterpiece also co-produces Poldark, Grantchester, Call the Midwife, Home Fires, Victoria and many others with the BBC and ITV. In every case, Rebecca Eaton, not VRC is a named producer. VRC helps make Masterpiece happen, and in turn, Masterpiece rolls its VRC funding along with other funding into making Masterpiece along with the content it broadcasts happen. There is NO direct funding of Downton Abbey by VRC, or Ralph Lauren before them. Twobells edit is factually inaccurate. --Drmargi (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This may be a radical concept to you but this isn't TV puff piece central. The only 'facts' that Wikipedia accepts are those that are WP:RS. Put simply, anything you've just written isn't true unless you can provide a WP:RS for every statement. Until you can counter 'with some financing by Viking River Cruises for Masterpiece' with a WP:RS that contradicts it, it remains. So, either back up your account with a new paragraph/s of WP:RS or restore what you deleted. As frustrating as it may be, that is how Wikipedia works.
AnonNep (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you actually read the source? Nowhere in it does it say what Twobells claims. The source isn't reliable. So, you need to find a source that says that Downtown Abbey was not produced by Masterpiece (as credited) but rather only received limited funding from Viking River Cruises, or the edit stays out. --Drmargi (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
As the one who kept adding the link you kept deleting? Of course I read it. Not reliable? Why? Take it to the noticeboard don't huffy delete. You need to counter what you contend with a new WP:RS paragraph. Otherwise based on "It also brought a new corporate sponsor in luxury river cruise company Viking River Cruises, which approached WGBH Boston last year about underwriting Masterpiece after it polled its clients about their TV-viewing habits. Viking caters to affluent baby boomers over the age of 55, who responded that several of Masterpiece’s programs, including Downton Abbey, were among their favorites" (from source) either stop deleting the article statement "with some financing by Viking River Cruises for Masterpiece" or re-write your version supported by WP:RS. I mean, really, if you are so bloody factual then why not write your version, with WP:RS supporting every statement? Instead you're removing WP:RS, screaming about how wrong it is, but providing no new WP:RS article edits to support your position. AnonNep (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The so-called "huffy" delete (which has been deleted by more than one editor) restored the properly sourced edit regarding co-production of Downton, and removed one which was Twobells' WP:OR interpretation of a piece about the popularity of Downton in the U.S. back around season two, and mentions the corporate underwriter for Masterpiece. You own quote above simply reinforces this: the article doesn't say that Downton is funded by VRC for Masterpiece. It simply says VRC is Masterpiece's corporate underwriter. There isn't a word to suggest that a dollar of funding from VRC goes to the production of Downton Abbey. On the other hand, the credits for the show and the source cited in the standing edit clearly spell out Masterpiece's role as co-producer. Case closed. --Drmargi (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The reference used to support the co-production status of the show is a WP:RS, as is this one and meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There use may be a radical concept for you but it is fine for WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The delight of Wikipedia is that there are no absolutes. One WP:RS that conflicts with another leads to a paragraph that accommodates them both unless it involves certain overriding categories WP:BLP (obviously), science, medicine, etc. But serial TV Drama? I think you'll find WP editor's have to accommodate other WP:RS positions outside of overriding policy within the article. Not just panic delete. AnonNep (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The PBS website Masterpiece funders lists numerous organisations as funding Masterpiece for Downton Abbey including Franklin Templeton, Ralph Lauren and Audible as well as Viking. If the funding of masterpiece is relevant to this article perhaps it should also mention these too, but in more suitable section of the article rather than the lede, and in the article about Masterpiece as the funding relates to all their shows not just Downton. EdwardUK (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Any protracted discussion of Masterpiece's funding belongs in the article about Masterpiece, not here. Masterpiece has two principal corporate underwriters: VRC and Farmer's Insurance, as well as numerous show-level and program level funders, as can be seen on the page linked above, which along with the Masterpiece Trust, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and individual donors, fund Masterpiece the producer and Masterpiece the show. None of this is at all related to its role in co-producing Downton Abbey. The material fact, and the only thing that belongs in this article is that Masterpiece and ITV co-produced Downton Abbey, as has appeared, appropriately sourced, in the article for some years now. Twobells' edit, driven by a desire to remove "made in the U.S. stamping" (his words), was designed to remove this fact from the article and replace it with an WP:OR interpretation of the source he used to support his edit. He made no effort to do any due diligence in determining the extend of VRC's role in the funding of Masterpiece, or be clear that VCR is just one of many sources of funding Masterpiece has, much less to separate funding of Masterpiece from Masterpiece's co-production of Downton Abbey. Consequently, the edit entirely mis-represents Masterpiece's role in the production of Downton Abbey while replacing a long-standing, reliably sourced edit with an unreliable one. --Drmargi (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would reply but apparently I'm a quote "meat puppet" unquote & have already had the protagonists Admin friends threaten me with sanctions (after they giggled on a private talk page). Very American. Very Trump like. AnonNep (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Please cease all personal attacks, which are reportable per the policy WP:NPA. Please see the definition of a meatpuppet at WP:MTPPT. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing about it becoming a movie?

Are all the people watching this article asleep??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B5EC:C53B:53A1:6B17 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is information about it being definite, you are more than welcome to provide it in the form of reliable sources. -- AlexTW 04:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The Sun said on 12 May 2017 "The Sun has exclusively revealed that a project to turn the TV series into a film has been greenlit and a budget approved, with the wheels well and truly in motion. A source said: “Film bosses have requested the services of crew members and accountants to work on the picture. A budget has been set and now it’s a case of getting everything in place to start shooting."[2] This is a good example of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. It's still in pre-production, and many things could prevent the actual shoot from going ahead. Even if the story is correct, it could be up to two years before the film hits the big screen. So patience is needed here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Titles of nobility

In the Crawley Family tree, Lady Sybil Crawley has lost her title for some reason, unlike her sisters. On her marriage to Tom Branson she became Lady Sybil Branson. The daughter of an earl (marquess or duke) does not lose her title upon marriage to a commoner. —Torontonian1 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Also wrong on the famiy tree: Isobel Turnbull Crawley—for the reasons given above—did not become "Lady Isobel Grey" on marrying Lord Merton. She became Lady Merton.—Torontonian1 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downton Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downton Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Fictional location of Downton

In season 5, episode 1, at 0:00:59 there is a sign showing 8 1/4 Thirsk <-> 3/4 Downton. This places Downton no farther than 9 miles from Thirsk as the crow flies, in the direction of Ripon (naturally, as the characters often mention going to Ripon in contexts indicating that it is closer). There is a real town of Rainton satisfying these conditions. These trivial inferences don't constitute OR, or do they? Leob (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, unless a reliable source discusses such speculations, this is classic original research. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downton Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

metacritic ratings graph

There are several problems with this graph. First and foremost, ratings aren't scientific data and is not suited to being graphed this way - it implies a level of accuracy that simply isn't there. This is especially true for a plot graph like this. (Pie and bar charts are slightly better because they're less precise by nature. Then, the graph's Y axis is truncated, giving the impression the show experienced a dramatic drop-off in ratings after season 1. Another example of how easy it is to mislead with staticics.

Removed. CapnZapp (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Time and place of setting vs lead sentence

Softlavender added time and place ("England in the early 20th century") to the lead sentence. Do note that a) this information is already available in the lead, and b) the article has been deemed sufficient for several years. When his change was reverted, he undid the revert with the edit summary "See WP:LEADSENTENCE. The first sentence has to provide sufficient information." Softlavender, please don't use policy as a weapon to enforce your edits. No, policy does not dictate that these two particular facts must reside in the lead sentence (they are already part of the lead). In fact, if you want a policy duel, allow me to quote policy as well: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. As for the actual edit, I weakly oppose it: it adds redundancy, but not a huge deal. But if you had not wielded policy against Robynthehode in a most inappropriate manner I probably would not have engaged. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence needs to supply sufficient information. I added the location of the setting, and the general timeframe. This is an extremely bare-bones description. If you dislike it, then please propose a different description that will provide at least minimal information (e.g. setting or location; general era or timeframe, etc.) other than the fact that it is a historical drama TV series. Adding setting and era does not "overload" the sentence at all and it certainly does not add anything "notable" about the series (there are hundreds of TV series set in England in the early 20th century), it merely provides the very basic facts. It doesn't even mention the manor, the upstairs/downstairs ensembles, the two families, etc. Please either propose an alternative that provides the very basic facts for the reader, or reinstate that info. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't object to your actual edit so much as the way you bludgeoned Robynthehode with policy. If you add back your changes, taking care to edit the whole lede (not just the lead sentence) to not repeat itself, I see no reason to object. Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted Softlavender again because it does not add anything to the lead that is not already there. The first line of the second paragraph states the location setting and the dates the drama is set in. It really doesn't need these repeated in a slightly different form in the first sentence. Robynthehode (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It has now been restored. Please gain WP:CONSENSUS for its removal. That has not occurred yet. MarnetteD|Talk 23:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
No the stable version was the one without this addition I believe. So it is up to the editors who want it included to get the consensus. Robynthehode (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Policy for its inclusion is here Per WP:LEADSENTENCE. So far your only reasoning is WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid reason for removal. MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
You are edit warring. I have given good reason why I think the inclusion of the text inserted by Softlavender should not be included in the lead. The edit by Softlavender is new to the article as far as I can see. CapnZapp and I have both reverted this edit and asked for the edit to be discussed here. So my revert was correct as far as I understand Wikipedia. My reasoning is certainly not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I have given a valid reason why it should not be included - the information is simply repeating information already in the lead. I will not revert this time and leave it to other editors to comment. Robynthehode (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence needs to supply sufficient information. WP:CONSENSUS is to retain what I wrote. It is you who are edit-warring against consensus and policy. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The answer here, once WP comes into line with a overwhelming majority of reputable sources, is to replace the material added to the first sentence with the simple statement that it is a British series, then move the first sentence of the third paragraph, which establishes the context and location for the series storyline, and make it the second sentence of the first paragraph. The third paragraph then focuses on listing the specific notable events that the storyline covers. Once we get past the questionable objections to describing this tv series in the same way as most commentators across the world, we will have a lead section that makes sense and conforms to WP's goal of being a neutral encyclopaedia, recording things as the world sees them rather than as a forum for editors' own argumentation. MapReader (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

For god's sake, Mapreader. When are you going to accept that the consensus for this and many other articles is currently to ignore RS and focus on production companies' country of origin? Please understand that passive-aggressive sniping and trying to isolate individual editors will get you nowhere. Achieve consensus overall to change the method, and then this article will fall into line. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It will be a better debate if everyone keeps calm. You know I have already flagged the wider issue. It is also worth looking carefully at how the MoS is written - see above. MapReader (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
He's more than passively aggressive. He outright calls me a liar in another discussion, which just weakens his own position. If his own were solid, he wouldn't have to resort to personal attacks. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
For god's sake.. when was 'the consensus for this and many other articles is currently to ignore RS' decided upon? When? Where? All hell breaks loose on WP if Reputable Sources are ignored in favor of Talk Page pile-ons. What is this the basis for this ignorance? AnonNep (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Notification of Manual of Style change

Link to change edit: [3]
Link to talk page section: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive_10#Proposed MoS change: Nationality
Br, CapnZapp (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC) -- Link edited to permanent archive destination CapnZapp (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

To add: All editors to Downton Abbey, your additions at the above link are genuinely welcomed. Participate constructively in Manual of style (MoS) discussions that include, but are are not limited to, Downton Abbey. If you feel you have an important point then make it in the talk on rules that govern this, & many other articles. AnonNep (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Family tree

An issue has arisen recently regarding the use of questionable names on the Crawley family tree. An IP editor removed it, expressing concerns that many names on the tree had not come from the show. It was reverted later by an editor who didn't find the rationale sufficient, but failed to provide any sources for the names, many of them middle names, but also other names such as the presumptive daughter of Lady Mary and her second husband, who is barely a bun in the oven as the series ends. There need to be sources for these names; Jessica Fellowes has written several books on the show, and it's possible some or all of them are contained in those books, but if so, they need to be sourced properly. As the chart stands, it's loaded with unsourced and WP:OR content that is not verifiable at present, and as such, it has to go. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Any child beyond Marigold, Sybbie and George has not ever been seen, and thus, does not exist. *If* such appears in the film, it *may* be added after that time, not before. Any vandalism made on the template has now fortunately been corrected. Yoryla (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the IP editor claimed in the edit summary "Family tree contained unsourced information strongly believed to be fabricated including additional middle names for Mary, Edith, Sybil, Marigold, and Tom and married titles for Sybbie Branson and a named daughter for Mary and Henry Talbot". A screencap of the family tree can be found here [4] (click image for larger version) or via the link to the page revision prior to the IP here [5] None of the IPs claims are supported. Secondly, where are the 'middle names'? No-one has them. The Marquess of Flintshire has a nickname, used in the show, 'Shrimpie', as with Lord Merton. Finally, if there are claims to WP:OR then give details (I can't spot any). As for sourcing that can be easily added, underneath the image, with links to each relevant episode. AnonNep (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I created the family tree and reverted all of those unsubstantiated names. Book sourcing for this doesn't really work because this is simply part of the plot and not the production end of the article. Plot summaries are supported strictly from the primary source. There appears to be a Downton Abbey Wiki and I believe fans have begun editing since the announcement of the film project recently. There are small things in the series to look for like the headstones of characters that die, letters being written/received and other verifiable content in the primary source episodes. If sourcing is something consensus determines is needed, it can be added directly to the template and will generate a reference list on the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • As all initial claims appear to be false, those by the OP, now reverted in the article, & by OP of this Talk Page section, there appears nothing to address, let alone reach consensus on. I'm always willing to stand corrected but, right now, I'd just like to thank you for the wonderful work you put in to create a very useful infographic for the article. Well done! AnonNep (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The names do keep getting placed by IPs so, I'll try to keep up on it. I thought the whole issue of a family inheritance concept in the plot fit very well with the graphic to illustrate the complicated relationships depicted by the author. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I have re-added the middle names to both Lady Mary and Lady Sybil and added the primary source information in the edit summary. I will look into proper citation for a Television series, primary source citation but we may want to add a notes section. Also, I was just checking our Wikipedia article on Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom and it appears we may have mistakes in a few places. Before any changes are made to character names on the tree I want to double check sources for proper British Peerage titles. The characters name and mention in the articles should not change. The tree is merely attempting to stick to the peerage traditions that would be present in genealogy tree of the period. An example of one mistake is that Lady Flintshire would keep her title even after divorce (at least as the article we have states) and both the given and married names of the daughters of an Earl are supposedly used, and Sybil would still be listed as Lady even after marrying a commoner. So her listing in a family tree of British peers would be "The Lady Sybil Crawley Branson". But I need to double check this.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Uh, that's not a mistake. Lady Flintshire would keep her title after divorce; it's only if she remarries that she loses the title - see Consuelo Vanderbilt; she was "Duchess of Marlborough" after divorce until she remarried a few months later, so unless Susan has remarried, she remains "Marchioness of Flintshire". According to debretts this is why Lady Rose MacClare doesn't lose her title when she marries Atticus - and I quote "The daughter of a duke, marquess, or earl who marries an untitled man becomes "Lady [Given name] [Husband's surname]", so Sybil becomes "Lady Sybil Branson" as Lady is hers by birth thanks to the position of her father and she doesn't lose that on marriage; Sybil has that title from the minute she is born and until she died as Tom has no title and is just "Mr" and Rose becomes "Lady Rose Aldridge" on marriage until Atticus becomes Lord Sinderby, then she loses the title she was born with and takes his and becomes "Lady Aldridge".DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
          • The tree needs editing - according to the film, Maud Bagshaw's father is the 5th Earl's brother, she married David Bagshaw, Baron Bagshaw; she later had an affair with a man called Jack Smith and had Lucy. Mary and Henry Talbot's girl is called Caroline. --DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources:

  • Kilkenny, Katie (2015-03-01). "Downton Abbey Ends With Good Cheer". The Atlantic.
  • Gilbert, Sophie; Katie Kilkenny; Joe Reid (2015-02-22). "Downton Abbey Gets a Fresh Influx of Villainery". The Atlantic.
  • Ryan, Maureen (2013-01-02). "'Downton Abbey' Season 3 Review: The Case For And Against The Period Drama". The Huffington Post.
  • Chee, Alexander (2014-01-06). "The One Reason Downton Abbey Isn't What It Used To Be". The New Republic.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Starring"

The starring list in the infobox became laughable a while ago. Do we know what the term means? - Seasider53 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downton_Abbey/Archive_3&oldid=1167350237"