Talk:Downton Abbey (film)

Cast

What's our selection criteria for the four cast members listed? There are no sources, and no indication why one cast member is included while another is not. (Removing section temporarily - please feel free to reinstate) CapnZapp (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I obviously don't disbelieve the cast will be returning, but where's the source? CapnZapp (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The cast should not be included. Sources are available to say that original cast members will return but not who.Blethering Scot 21:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Draft

‎User:Rusted AutoParts Please keep in mind most of us had no idea there was a draft - only the single user who initially created this page got the notification (I've raised the issue at WT:DRAFT). You haven't done anything wrong, but you could have been more diplomatic - instead of bluntly wiping our work, how about merging the two articles together? Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I mainly erased anyway as per WP:NFF it can’t exist in mainspace yet as it’s not started filming. And merge will likely be what’ll have to be done here. It’s just occasionally frustrating to begin building an article in draftspace then see it get leapfrogged and created in mainspace despite there being indication that it exists in draftspace when starting the article. It makes for an unnecessary deletion/merge process imo. Rusted AutoParts 23:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirect by RAP and invite discussion. I see nothing in the cite WP:NFF that mandates the article being effectively deleted on one editor’s say, not to mention one with their own article draft. The Downton Abbey movie article is well-referenced and reasonably developed for a new article. At the very least it deserves the dignity of a discussion, instead of de facto deletion. Happy to discuss merging. Jusdafax (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is already underway - look at the section just above this one! CapnZapp (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The two sections are now merged. CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts: I feel your frustration - its the same as ours when you pull the rug from under our feet, just in reverse. Again, the draft mechanism isn't working well enough, which can be discussed here: WT:DRAFT.

To both draft and mainspace editors - feel free to merge the two articles into one (without wiping either one). Since Rusted has a point about NFF, perhaps Draftspace is the better location for our continued efforts? Or is principal photography imminent so we can skip that step? Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the restoration of the article. First section of NFF literally states “Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date.”. It’s not filming yet, so it doesn’t stay. If the redirect is reverted again perhaps the issue can be remedied by a nomination for deletion for violating NFF.

And draft can work fine if people recognize a draft exists before making a mainspace article but I digress. The draft history will be history merged here....once filming begins. I haven’t pulled any rugs if it’s well within guidelines for me to redirect it until it meets criteria. And sorry if I’m coming off as aggressive or aggravated, or something under those lines. I don’t mean to. Me havin it in draftspace really isn’t my issue, it’s not diifcult for me to have it history merged. The issue is the premature entry of it into mainspace. @Robsinden: can attest that I had issues with that myself back in the day with Man of Steel and The Lone Ranger. Rusted AutoParts 10:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen an act so petty in my life and flies in the face of collaboration. There are enough sources to make this meet WP:GNG which is our prinicipal notability criteria & therefore the redirect should be removed & article reinstates. Absoloutly stinks of I want to be atttibuted for the article & throwing dummy out of the pram regardless of what you say above. The article can be hist merged if you are worried about your statistics. Blethering Scot 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Per BRD the article should not have been reverted, after the initial redirect had been objected to & discussion took place. I’ve reverted it back to stance when discussion started. 21:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Blethering Scot

Agree with Blethering Scott. Acting outside the BRD cycle is outside of how we do things. The reliable sources required by NFF absolutely and obviously exist. A third addition of a redirect, as I see it, will edge us into bad faith editing. Since NFF has been invoked, RAP will you please cite how the references cited are unsatisfactory, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if the above sounded dramatic & I apologise for the tone, but that’s genuinley what this looked like. The created article did not come from the draft space, contains far more information & sources than the draft did. Elements such as cast was not included in the article, as there is absolutely no certainty who will be in it other than members of original cast. I think we need to separate out the fact that the draft existed, against does this meet the general notability guidelines. I believe it does & is principal filming is imminent we would be absolutely shooting oursleves in the foot by deleting the article. Most articles in draft space, generally are poor, often unsourced and frankly require more work than creating the article from scratch. If elements of the draft are later merged in then that’s fine, but I certainly wouldn’t be for enforces use of a draft Blethering Scot 21:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not do this because I want some fictional credit for creating the article. How else can I make NFF clearer: NFF essentially states the film has to have entered principal photography. When the cameras officially begin rolling. Many factors can disrupt the production. Schedulings or accidents or budgetary means. That’s why the sources aren’t satisfactory: they confirm the film but doesn’t indicate it’s begun production. It’s not in bad faith to err on the side of caution. That’s why I redirected it. Scot is acting like I wish to erase this solely so I can claim credit for creating it which is just sad and flies in the face of civil discord. I can’t believe I’ve been villainized in that way.

I create articles in draft space so any new information that come along prior to the film entering production. I regret mentioning existence of the draft as editors seems to think me having begun it there is why I want this one gone. It’s not. I don’t even remember ever saying I wished this to be eradicated. And despite illustrating that here and at WT:DRAFT it clearly has fallen on deaf ears. I thought since NFF has been enforced in multiple other instances of film articles I’ve worked on, but once again a double standard seems to be in effect. It violates WP:NFF. And in the first sentence in NFF which I’ve provided it’s states film articles shouldn’t be in mainspace until principal photography begins. It’s why I redirected it, so the redirect can be undone once that happens. But if the belief is big bad RAP wants credit so he’ll destroy all our hard work, I guess I can’t stop that. Rusted AutoParts 22:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: can probably explain NFF better than myself. Rusted AutoParts 22:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Blethering Scot already apologized for his heated rhetoric, so let’s skip over that to your citation of the first sentence in NFF. Yes, technically you are correct. But given the high-profile and widespread media coverage the new movie has achieved, common sense calls for an article now, as I see it. The only data we have on the startup of principal photography is “later this summer” which could be tomorrow or as late as September. If we don’t keep this article as it is, by consensus, I see three major options: 1) Go with the redirect and possibly add some details about the new film to the parent article 2) Merge the entire current article into the parent article and carry on there until the film shoot begins or 3) send the article to AfD. I prefer making an exception to NFF, but if consensus to do so does not exist, I think a #2, the temporary content merge, including any elements of your draft that are helpful, is a good compromise. Jusdafax (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All I can say is: User:Rusted AutoParts I hope you realize your approach will only lead you into a destructive edit war. How about calling off the deletions and instead help each other merge the two articles into one? I propose as a sign of good faith you copy the mainspace article into draft space, superseding your own effort, since editors believe the main copy is of higher quality than the draft copy. If you are serious about only being worried about NFF that should satisfy everybody: the main copy disappears from mainspace until principal photography commences, but survives intact in draftspace. Just my two cents worth, CapnZapp (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I am seeing Scot’s apology now. I guess I was still sorta stunned with his first response I kinda glossed over the second.

And honestly I do share the sentiment that with certain films receiving more significant coverage than most they could make for an exception. But prior pushbacks for Man of Steel (exception was made) and The Lone Ranger engrained into me that NFF is something that should be followed. I don’t wish to say “if it’s not me who’ll do it it’ll likely be someone else”, but there are many who do follow the guideline to the tee. I won’t make any further redirections here but I’m just saying don’t be surprised to see others come to do the same thing.

As this article will remain up, I’ll see about having the draft merged into here so there’s not two kicking around. And should it get kicked back by other editors, a temp move to draftspace won’t prove probmatic. Rusted AutoParts 23:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I’ve not made any deletion requests. It was only a suggestion I made in frustration. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And I didn't mean deletions, I meant "reverts into redirect". Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Plot is way too long

Plot section needs to be drastically trimmed, per WP film plot policies. Icarus of old (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:FILMPLOT the section should be between 400 and 700 words unless the film is complicated requiring a longer section. I don't see this film as needing much more than the MOS states.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

As of this edit] the plot has a character count of 7496.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm working on editing the plot, which, I agree, is way too long.PNW Raven (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

`

Film family tree

The series is a different family tree as it is likely we will grow this further if there are more films and we can get the correct relationship of the new characters to the Crawley family. So here is the basic tree to build on for the film;

{{Template:Downton Abbey film, family tree}}--Mark Miller (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Baron and Baroness?

Baron and Baroness Merton? Does the film mention this? Does the TV show mention this? For some time this was posted on the Downton Abbey Crawley family tree, copying the name from the Downton Abbey fan site however, the site does not reference anything but an assumption from a line that does not say Baron at all. In fact, some of the RS I am seeing are also parroting the fan names that were added without proper sourcing. Unless this can be properly sourced, this content is considered circular: content originating on Wikipedia and then used by a source--cannot then be used as a source on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I did some checking and it apears this would be a misuse of the primary source on Wikipedia. The problem with giving the character of Lord Merton the assumed title of Baron is that it is an analysis and interpretation of an episode. In a scene from Series 5, episode 5, Mr Carson introduces Isobel and as "Mrs Reginald Crawley" and then Lord Merton as; "The Lord Merton". Now, from what I gather, the assumption is the use of "The Lord" in the introduction by Carson and the assumption that only Barons go by; "The Lord" in a formal setting however, according our article; Baron under style of address], it states that in a formal setting a Baron would be introduced as; "The Right Honourable The Lord Merton". Also, "MPs in Dublin: Companion to History of the Irish Parliament, 1692-1800" By E. M. Johnston-Liik (2006) states that, of the seven levels of British peerage, a Marques, an Earl, a Viscount and a Baron, were all called Lord or lady. Our article also states; "Less formally, one refers to or addresses a baron as Lord [Barony] and his wife as Lady [Barony]", so there is some discrepancy in the assumption that Lord Merton is a Baron. Barons are the lowest form of peerage and after the mid 1800 became less important. If Isobel was to be one of the grandest ladies of the county (as stated in the show) by marrying Lord Merton, would a baronage be important enough?

On the flip of that, in the same scene this assumption is based on, Carson first introduces "The Lady Beaumont and The Lord Howard of Glossop". These are two historic figures that are actually a baroness and Baron. It apears that Lady Beamount retains her formal title as the 11 Baroness of Beamount in her own right. Fellowes certainly understands the British peerage but my question is, is ONLY a baron referred to with the article; "The"? Finally, while this assumption may sound reasonable, it is completely struck down by the credit for the actor in that and every episode ~ Lord Merton. The character's peerage level has never actually been divulged or spoken of on the show or in the movie so, at this point we must continue to use the credited character name and title. Adding baron right now is original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

They're not real people. So yes, we should follow the credits only. U-Mos (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You do know that, bizarre or not to you, removing sources is kinda wrong. All content on Wikipedia needs referencing and these names have been under a lot of strain from fan cruft. PBS challenged the family tree and I believe the names of the characters should be sourced here. If you feel something could be improved, perhaps helping to refine the notes is better than deleting another's referenced work.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I will attempt to make it more like an FA article for the main cast, adding some basic, sourced information, from sources connected to the production for credited character names and other secondary sources for comments from the actors on playing the role or other sourced mention worth noting. I try to make it not look bizarre to you but honestly, people might want to attempt collaboration and try and keep the article factual. Someone keeps removing the US production dates, preferring to go with no mention of US dates. That is original research. That seems bizarre to me and I certainly do not support that "version" of history.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark Miller, I removed those items for the reason that they have nothing to do with the film (the sources pre-dating it by many years). Sources in the cast section should be proving that these actors/characters appear in the film, which none of them did. Name formation may well have been discussed at length before, and if under persistent edit warring could be explained in a hidden note, but do not require anything visible in the article itself. Sources for precise names could be used in the characters article if desired. U-Mos (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

U-Mos that makes perfect sense to me. Sense even I was concerned about that, I understand. Thanks for responding. Sorry I got involved off Wiki with other stuff.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lord Merton is definitely a Baron; that comes up in dialogue in the show. I just can't recall where. I believe it's early on, when he and the boys first come to dinner and Larry gives Tom a bad time, but I'm not certain. I seem to recall someone (Violet and Robert?) talking about his title and that he's one of the girls' godfather. Later, when Isobel has broken with him after Larry strikes again, Violet talks with her about not wanting a title; I think it may also come up then. Anyway, there's some detective work to be done before it can go in the article. I thought the "We're Expecting You" ad campaign included a poster where he was identified as Baron Merton, but can't find one. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not an exhaustive source of information, but the Downton Wiki [1] only justifies the 'Baron' title by the original research of the Carson announcement. Can't find anything further currently, and he's still credited as 'Lord Merton' consistently. U-Mos (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

References

British vs, British-American

The production is a British film or a British-American film? Johnnydado12 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Filmed in Britain so British.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Filming location does not determine nationality. Production company(ies) do. Co-produced by Masterpiece, thus British-American. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)