Talk:Patricia Routledge/Archive 1

LGB

- Peter Tilbrook

What on Earth is "vicious" about someone possibly not being a heterosexual? Either way, the Phyllis Claymore rumor does seem to be bogus.--Downtownstar 11:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

- "I know for certain that Pat is not a lesbian" -- Eastenders isn't real you know.

I think she was talking about this Pat not that Pat. Arniep 11:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that it is important, but Pam St Clement (the actress who plays Pat in Eastenders) *IS* bisexual and has had relationships with both genders...but as I said, not important 78.86.230.62 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Downtownstar - it seems a bit homophobic to say that someone is not a lesbian as if being one was a liability. Nevertheless, opinion needs to be by the wayside here. The point is, all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Unless we have a source which has Routledge clearly identified as a lesbian (or identifying herself as a lesbian), then it should not be in the article. NickBurns 14:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Whats vicous or disgusting about being a lesbian, stop being such a loser. You sound like a mouthpiece of the BNP. Colindk 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing disgusting about it, but one shouldn't write an encyclopedia article about someone being a lesbian if that person is not. This is afterall supposed to be a source of reliable information, not a tabloid. If wikipedia is going to print rumors as fact it may as well write arcticles about the three hundred pound baby from Mars or Rod Stewart's emergency stomach pump. Come on people, there's no need to make this into a political issue. I think we all just want to know whether what we are reading here is true or not. I'm just asking for a little proof that this seemingly ridiculous rumor has any basis in reality - Vanya

I quite honestly believe that LGB should have just left the subject alone. Whether or not Pat and Pam are lesbians or are not is really irrelevent and it is their own business. All LGB has done is add another article about peoples private lives which was totally unnecessary. Another invasion of privacy by someone who is actully just a busy body and wanted their own 5 minutes of fame by writing the original homophobic article - Patricia

So is she a dyke or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.78.112 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

General unsigned comment

Does anyone know when Patricia Routledge will next be on the Television in a new programme? She's a great actress and it would be nice to see her on the TV again in a good drama for BBC1 or ITV. There were rumours she was going to be in the next Harry Potter film but these appear to have sunk without trace.

Content dispute

I have been asked to put on my admin hat and intervene in a content dispure here, which as led to about a dozen contest edits.

First, please may I ask the editors to involve to desist from making further changes, and to discuss the issues here.

As far as I can see, there are two points in dispupte:

1. The wording of the opening sentence
2. The choice of picture to accompany the article

Opening sentence

The argument appears to me to be over whether the article should begin with "Patricia Routledge" or "Katherine Patricia Routledge". It seems to me that item 7 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other_non-royal_names is quite clear on this point: the article name should be "Patricia Routledge", but the opening sentence should begin "Katherine Patricia Routledge".

If anyone dissents from that interpretation, may I ask that the issue be discussed here?

Personally, I don't understand the argument that "Katherine Patricia Routledge" should be the acceptable choice. The sentence goes on to describe her as a Tony Award-winning, English actress, but it is "Patricia Routledge" who is known as such. Tony Curtis was born "Bernard Schwartz" . . . should there be an article titled as such? Of course not, because no one knows him by that name. I believe the opening sentence should identify the individual by the name by which he or she is widely known, not the birth name, which should be included with the date of birth. It just makes more sense. TOM 12:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a differance. Tony Curtis has changed his name, Routledge hasn't, she merely uses her middle name. Look at Tony Blair's page, it starts Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, well he's never known as that, so by your idea we would say Tony Blair (born Anthony Charles Lynton Blair on 6 May 1953). Well clearly that isn't acceptable. There's a big differance between someone who has changed their name like Judy Garland, Penelope Keith, and so, and someone who uses their middle name (like Jude Law and Gordon Brown), and thats the issue here. --Berks105 14:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if sfTVLguy2 doesn't understand the WikiConvention then that is what it is. Nevertheless that is the way we do things which I think he courteously accepts. Hence Sean Connery, Calvin Coolidge, Montgomery Clift, Julius Caesar, Paul McCartney, Brad Pitt, Woodrow Wilson, L. Ron Hubbard, etc. I propose that we stick to the conventions we have. - Kittybrewster 16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to sfTVLguy2, I think the issue is probably not that he doesn't understand the convention, but rather that he disagrees with it. Personally, I'm happy with the convention, but wikipedia evolves over time with guidelines being reviewed and sometimes revised … so maybe sfTVLguy2 would like to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), then he could see whether there is room for a consensus on changing the conventon or noting a few exceptions. I have just checked the archives of that talk page as far back as March 2003 and can find no objections to this part of the convention — the discussions there have been about more complex issues such as royalty and women who married nobility — so maybe sfTVLguy2 has thought of something others have missed?

However, if so, this isn't the place for that discussion; it should take place on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, BrownHairedGirl, in realizing I disagree rather than misunderstand. I will take your suggestion and submit my thoughts using the proper channels. Thank you.

By the way, as I understand Berks105's explanation above, the article about Cary Grant should start "Cary Grant," not "Archibald Leach" as it does, since he changed his name . . . right? TOM 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Have I missed something with that Tony Blair reference? Anthony and Tony are the SAME name much like Pat and Patricia are the same name...Tony Blair's name is Anthony Blair but he has chosen to be known formally as "Tony Blair", he hasn't changed his name or anything...is there a point being missed here? 78.86.230.62 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Choice of picture

Three pictures appear to be available: Image:Hyacinthbucket.jpg and Image:Hyacinthbucket1.jpg and Image:Routledge.jpg

The dispute appears to be about which image is clearer. My eyesight isn't what it used to be, but I don't think that there is much difference, if any — and certainly not enough for an edit war.

If the editors are not happy with whichever picture is on the article now, please could you discuss it here rather than making further changes?

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea that this picture (they look the same to me too) is the one uploaded by SFTVLguy and is being disputed by orphanBOT as giving rise to possible copywrite problems. SFTVL (what does that stand for, I wonder) objects to the previous picture which I have put on the right. - Kittybrewster 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The top two images are identical- In my opinion neither are of particularly good quality. Arniep 21:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

sf-TVL-guy (I can guess TV but TVL has me baffled) seems to have uploaded an unsourced image twice, giving it different names. He removed the following (by orphanBOT) from his own talk page.

Image tagging for Image:Hyacinthbucket1.jpg

- Thanks for uploading Image:Hyacinthbucket1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well. - Kittybrewster 08:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, Image:Hyacinthbucket.jpg and Image:Hyacinthbucket1.jpg were NOT identical photos, as they appear to be today. Image:Hyacinthbucket.jpg - a totally different image which can be seen at [1] - was distorted, with Routledge's face severely compressed. I removed it and replaced it with Image:Hyacinthbucket1.jpg [2]. (I also identified the source - http://kuacentral.com/ - once I received a message from orphanBOT. My failure to do so originally was an oversight, not intentional.) TOM 12:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that my discussion about these issues began with Berks105 when I sent him/her a message via his/her talk page. The response I received came from Kittybrewster. I replied to Berks105, and this time received a response from Proteus, referring to specific comments I made to Berks105. I find it very odd - and extremely unlikely - that Kittybrewster and Proteus would be reading Berk105's personal messages and taking it upon themselves to answer them. I feel we have one individual using multiple IDs here to create the allusion he/she has a lot of support.

And what is the importance of the meaning of the name SFTVLGUY2 in relation to these issues? Why would Kittybrewster ask not once, but twice? It's totally irrelevant.

Finally, may I add that my messages always are polite and signed? I don't appreciate receiving nasty anonymous notes like the one I found (and deleted) earlier today. Please have the guts to identify yourself. Thank you. TOM 12:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would once again say we are all differant people, and such a claim to the contrary is absolutely riduculous! I can only presume Proteus and Kittybrewster had seen that you and I had a disagreement over Patricia Routledge's page and then thought that such comments about the matter would be on my page. I would also contest your "polite" messages, accusing me and two other well respected users of being sockpuppets is offensive. And with regard to the anonymous comments on your Talk Page, they were made by User:SweetNSpicyGal (as you can see from the edit history), who has nothing to do with either this argument or the three users involved it in. --Berks105 14:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be resolving itself. sfTVLguy2 has explained the bucket0 bucket1 issue and that it is copywrite OK. I suggest bucket1 be removed and bucket0 be used throughout (now done). Doubtless sfTVLguy2 now courteously accepts berks105’s assurance that none of us are sockpuppets or pseudonyms of another. And for myself I will continue to speculate as to the meaning of TVL which may and may not be relevant - irrelevant if they are Tom's initials. - Kittybrewster 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Putting my admin hat on again, I'm pleased to see that the issues here appear to be generally resolving themselves (well done everyone!), but I am a little concerned that the discussions still appear to be clouded by an accusation by User:SFTVLGUY2 of sockpuppetry, whch is a serious matter (see WP:SOCK).

I have to say that I have had quite a lot of encounters with Kittybrewster, Berks105 and Proteus, and I have never seen anything to lead me to to suspect sockpuppetry. Those three users apear to me to be quite prolific editors with distinct but overlapping areas of interest, and with differences in style and in edit patterns. I am not aware of any history of any of them being involved in messy disputes (which is one of the usual reasons for sockpuppetry), but I do know that it is quite common for users whose work overlaps to keep each others talk pages on their watchlist, which is why they would be in a position to respond to comments there (there are several respected editors who are kind enough to monitor my talk page in that way). So the fact that they were rapidly drawn into discussions does not appear to me to be prima facie evidence of sockpuppetry; as above, I can see a wholly benign explanation for how that happened.

However I have not done a thorough investigation, and in any case it would be entirely wrong for one admin to prejudge any case: I'm just giving you all my initial thoughts on the matter. Sockpuppetry is a serious no-no on wikipedia, so if someone genuinely suspects that it is occurring, it is appropriate to raise the issue. However, this is not the place to raise it: there are procedues available.

SFTVLGUY2, please either:

• if you are serious about these allegations, please read the policy at WP:SOCK and report the problem in the proper way at WP:SUSPSOCK; or
• drop the accusation (preferably with an apology).

This really is not an allegation which should be made casually. Please, SFTVLGUY2, either take the allegation through the proper channels at WP:SUSPSOCK, or drop it.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I found it odd that my message to one person was answered by another, and my second message to the original individual was answered by yet another different person. That people would monitor other people's talk pages never crossed my mind. I'm too busy trying to add new articles to be reading anyone else's mail, so I didn't realize that apparently this practice is common.

Since this subject has been raised, may I ask how ethical it is for someone to monitor someone's messages and then get involved in a discussion that shouldn't concern him/her? Ongoing discussion I was having with a new user re: her repeated vandalism was read by a "quite prolific editor" who then contacted the new user and told her to ignore me, suggesting I was just a trouble maker. This only encouraged the newcomer to vandalize once again not only the article in question but the discussion page related to it, as well. If the "quite prolific editor" had taken a moment to review the two versions of the article, he/she would have seen my comments about errors in format, facts, grammar, and spelling were valid; instead, he/she opted to side with the newcomer instead - based solely, I'm sure, on his/her disagreement with me re: a different issue. I personally find such behavior to be rather immature. TOM 13:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, Tom, can we take one thing at a time here? I really don't want to comment on a different situation without knowing all the details, and if you want to raise another problem, please drop a note on my talk page with the relevant references, and I can take a look at it. But it really does not belong on this page.

As to reading other people's talk pages, it doesn't make much sense if think of user talk pages as private mail ... but it makes a lot of sense if you think of them as "discussions about the work of that editor". Reading those talk pages can be a very useful way of understanding why things are being done in a particular way, and can help to avoid misunderstandings. In general, it seems to me to be something to be encouraged: Wikipedia is not simply a place for creating new articles, it is a place for working with other editors to improve the encyclopedia, and keeping an eye on any relevant discussions really should be seen as part of the job, not as a distraction.

One of the fundamental principles of wikipedia is to WP:AGF, to assume good faith. In other words, always start by looking for a benign explanation. I can't stress enough how important it is.

And on that note, since I assume that your comments about the other editoirs wer made in good faith, please can you either withdraw them or take them to WP:SUSPSOCK? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

English or British

There appears to be a further dispue about whether Routledge should be called English or British.

Again, may I ask people not engage in a edit war, but to discuss the issue here?

And may I suggest that a solution might be found by trying to discover which adjective Routledge herself prefers? If you can't find any existing source, why not write to her? The website http://kuacentral.com/ says that

Actors and actresses from the show can be reached at the following address. Please remember to be polite in any correspondence, courtesy is the key to continued replies from the cast.

(Actors name)
Keeping up Appearances
BBC Television
Television Center
Wood Lane
London W12 7RJ
England

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair I don't think there is a debate here. I had changed it to English some time ago, reflecting the fact that the categories are English and its fair when all Scottish people are down as Scottish and Welsh people are down as Welsh. However, when SFTVLGUY2 made his many changes he changed this as well. Due to the changes in the opening line, I didn't notice he had changed English as well and only noticed when Arniep made a small edit. I then thought he had made the change, but of course didn't, I don't think there was really an edit war here over that. --Berks105 09:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose we stick with "English". - Kittybrewster 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio and audio book credits

I'd like to suggest a seperate sub-section for her extensive radio & audio book work - already mentioned on the page, but perhaps due greater precedence? Ladies of Letters was one of Radio 4's most successful comedy series; there's the Alan Bennet plays; her spectacular reading of Wuthering Heights (havent heard it? track it down at your library now!); and a host of other plays (does anyone have a copy of "The May Child" from July 2005? My stereo ate the cassette I recorded it on). Has anyone got a fuller... umm... 'radiography' cant be the word, but you know what I mean. What do people think?

P.s. Shouldnt someone delete the daft "betty boothroyd" malarkey above? This is an encyclopedia not the National Enquirer. I dont want to tread on anyone's toes but it's blatantly just a prank.

P.R. as a singer?

As anyone who has listened a recording to any of Ms Routledge's musicals (especially Little Mary Sunshine) will already be very well aware she has (or at least had when young) a fine (and trained) singing voice - a good deal more "operatic" than the typical musical theatre actress/singer. I have added "singer" to her occupation at the head of the article - but does anyone know if she is "officially" a soprano or perhaps a contralto - or any details about her musical education?Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Years active

"Years active 1952 - present"

However, according to IMDB the last notable entry was 2003 and according to wikipedia the last entry was 2006...is she still actively working?

I'd comment but I'm not sure if she is and I also rarely edit wikis 78.86.230.62 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)