User talk:Bradley0110/archive

The Deal

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for this amazing expansion. I think you could consider nominating the article for good article status (see nominations page). Great work. :) Qst (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Deal (2003 film)

On 25 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Deal (2003 film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Travis

I've made a quick edit on the Pete Travis page you started as i dont think he's Irish.

Your feedback is welcomed.

81.149.176.198 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Andy Harries

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andy Harries, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bathurst

Thanks for your additions. If you're a fan of him, you might be interested in [1]. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

boo-hoo you say?

yea, i guess that comment was a bit in poor taste. mea culpa. it sounded better in my head than it does when written out. at any rate, i was commenting specifically about the trivia contained in the table, and the fact that the table itself takes up halve the page for just a very few entries. one thing though, when you revert someone's work, make sure you only undo the portion(s) you object to instead of a wholesale rollback. cheers! --emerson7 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cold Feet (series 1), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 04:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cold Feet Series 5

I see that you undid my comment about the spoiler. I didn't realize that this was specifically called out in the Wikipedia policy. My mistake.

Re the number of episodes: I bought the DVD set for Series 5 and there definitely 6 episodes. The episode with the car accident was episode 5, and the finale was episode 6. Could it be that there were 4 episodes aired, but 6 episodes produced and sold on the DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.106 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the four 90-minute episodes that aired were divided up into six nonsensical DVD episodes that begin and end in random places (e.g. the "first" episode ends after Pete smokes the joint, which is about 15 minutes too early. The proper second episode should begin at the scene where the characters are picking up their post in the morning, which is dumped mid-way through the "second" DVD episode). Presumably Granada prepared one-hour versions of the episodes for international sales and its media arm decided it would be funny to put those ones on the DVD instead of the normal episodes and then charge people for it. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

this seems like good information for the Cold Feet page, not just your Talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.103.96 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all original research; there are no reliable secondary sources (or even primary sources) that say that they are international masters. Reference to the fact that the episodes on the DVD are different to the broadcast versions is already in the series 5 article. Including it in the main article would probably put too much weight on one thing. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Brideshead Revisited

Hello Bradley0110. I just wanted to drop a note of thanks for moving the page for BR from miniseries to TV serial. I had meant to do this for some time and kept putting it off. Also a BIG thanks for fixing the redirects after the move (I hope that you saw my note on Pheobe Nicholls page when you got there) not all editors are so thorough. Even though I am a yank I know that the term miniseries does not apply to British programming and I am always removing it from the lead sections of various pages. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I would be happy to help if and when I can. Are you working from a list somewhere or just changing those that you come across? I did see one change yesterday that I want to mention. You moved Clapham Junction (TV drama) to Clapham Junction (film). I think that it should have been moved to Clapham Junction (TV film). The distinction is a small one but when it comes to categories (which I have worked with a lot) we have a [[Category:British films]] and a [[Category:British television films]]. Now I don't want you to feel that you have to go back and change this one because I don't think it makes a big difference. It might be something to think about during future moves. Also I am not insisting on this, if you disagree that is okay too. Once again thanks for your reply. Let me know what help I can give, although I will let you know that I sometimes get diverted into other projects, but I will do what I can. MarnetteD | Talk 10:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for your thoughts on my suggestion. Along with the fact that I was trying to match them with the category I think that I was struck by the one you changed yesterday on Pheobe Nicholls page. Her work was split out into stage, film and television (not all actor pages do this) and the CJ that you fixed is in television. Although this is highly unlikely, the potential is there for some editor to come along and move that entry from her television work to her film work based solely on the way that the entry reads. They probably wouldn't click on the link to read the page in question to find out that it is a film made for television. I do realize that this is all way too nitpicky and, again, since this is the hidden qualifier in the link it is highly unlikely that what I have just mentioned would happen. Also, as I said above I don't think that you need to do it the way that I suggested if you don't want to. You are already doing good work and I wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of that based solely on my opinion. As to discussing it with others we could get a conversation going if you want but I think that we would need to mention it at both the film project and the television project talk pages and I don't know if we would get agreement between the two. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. In my opinion they should be called miniseries just like Wikipedia's page describing them is. I doubt that you will bump into an editor who insists on the hyphen, but, if you do let me know and we can discuss it with them. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just reread your last note to me and I realized that I didn't completely understand it when I typed my note above. I guess that you are wanting to list them as (TV miniseries) to distinguish them from the comic book ones. That sounds good to me so please continue on. My apologies for not reading your note correctly. MarnetteD | Talk 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo Whiley

Please do not change reference formats without prior agreement, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please restore them. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summary entry noted and passed to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivil_edit_summary_comment. It looks like someone removed reference mail060206 and LemmeyBOT in attempting to fix it, made it worse - [2]. The formatting of the reference was intentional. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about without a template?

You are allowed to remove warnings, but I wish you wouldn't call it "insulting" in the edit summary. Listen, you have a long history of positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and your edits are very strong. But I hope you understand why it is unacceptable to ridicule other editors for "stamping their feet and crying," etc. As a longstanding editor, you must be aware of WP:CIVIL. Just try to be more careful, okay? You were in the right regarding the edits, and it eventually went your way; why get nasty over it?

I'm sorry if you found the use of a template insulting -- but I do feel a warning is called for. Thanks, and I hope you will understand. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Okay, well if you would like to remove this section too, that is fine, I just wanted to make sure the message had gotten through :) Regarding the other editor, I thought the report to WP:WQA was way premature (the edit summary he linked to probably wasn't your finest moment, but it wasn't so offensive that it warranted making a federal case out of), and ironically I was just going to ignore the report until you responded, ha ha ha... If he's making frivolous reports to the dispute resolution process, let me know and we can do something about that. If he's just whining, then I'd just say, do your best to ignore it. Best of luck! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wallander - The Series

BBC & Yellowbird let the press in on a shoot the other day so there are a handfull of articles in talking about the Wallander films. I am VERY new to this Wiki stuff but manybe some of these can be of use.... VsanoJ (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the updates on the Wallander (series) page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsanoJ (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Deal

Your points noted - and for the most part - respectfully disagreed with

Only the supposed deal between Blair and Brown is "well-documented", whereas your version implies that there is concrete evidence it happened. It is only a myth!

There was a deal. I have now added the Guardian story with the copy of the document. Whether it was cemented at Granita or not - is another matter. But the Guardian story - covered by multiple other outlets - makes clear that there was a deal.

Secondly, please do not change the order the stars are credited.

On whose say-so? Where is the official billing that ordains that? Out of deference for your feelings on the topic - I have placed the star names in the order they were - for now. Pending seeing if there is official billing one way or the other. I suspect that the presentation of the sequence of the names has varied in different places. In which case it is entirely subjective as to which name appears first.

Thirdly please do not argue over the "television play" label when multiple reliable sources [4][5][6][7] describe it as such

I am not "arguing" I am disagreeing. I am absolutely certain that I can find multiple sources that describe it as a television film. Look up the Wikipedia definitions of "television play" and "television film". The term "television play" was used in UK primarily in the 1960s through to 1980s. Since that time the term has become far less used. What were once called "television plays" are now commonly referred to as "television films" or variations thereof.

Moreover - Wikipedia is an international resource and in the USA for example - such productions are not called a "television play". This film was shown on the US cable network HBO and shown at the San Francisco Film Festival and in both cases was described as a film. The film festival was attended by the writer. There is no record I have found of him objecting to it being called a "film"

You are using a term that has fallen from common British usage and was never in common usage in one of the main countries where the film has been shown - and that can create confusion. The fact that there are occasional usages in the UK of the older term does not mean that one should use it on Wikipedia which is an international resource. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read through both related articles (I had previously heard of neither one), and I think, in relation to the points above:

1. If there is so much controversy about the existance of the pact, then saying that a few sources confirmed its existance (and nothing else) is clear POV-pushing. The compromise in such a situation is to lower the fact-iness of the alleged sourced and err on the safe side.
2. The order of the actors is unimportant and seems to come down to personal preference. Or I'll just say it is silly to edit-war about this.
3. I have never heard of the term "television play" and needed to look it up, but I am not British. The film being British however is reason enough to prefer British spelling and British phrasing. America dominates the film world through Hollywood, and losing one article to the British is not going to change that.

(I'm off to bed and apologize for all sarcasm if it should be perceived as such.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

---

In response to your various points.

I share your desire to avoid crossing into 3R terrain or edit warring. This is a benign difference of opinion - not a battle.

The point I'm trying to make about the deal taking place/not taking place is that the lead of The Deal (2003 film) article is not the place to go into detail about it.

Not in detail I agree. But the article should indicate whether this drama is about a pure fable or something that has a strong basis in fact. Hence the desirability to at least cite a source with a document that shows there was an agreement of some kind. We should at least leave in the Guardian reference. We should not take out sources that confirm an assertion that needs to be substantiated.

The Blair-Brown pact article is quite underdeveloped as it currently stands and if you're interested in an improvement collaboration then that would be great.

I'm quite to open to that.

As for the billing, well The Deal itself is the place. Morrissey is credited before Sheen and Peter Morgan wrote Brown as the main character.

And on IMDB - a frequently cited source - Sheen is credited first. Sometimes - especially when there are two actors given equal billing - one actor subsequently becomes more famous than the other. And then an article on Wikipedia (which is not a place where contractual billing is required) - reflects that. The Wiki article is to assist and inform. Michael Sheen has become better known because of his role in "The Queen" - and therefore his name is more familiar to most readers. I won't change this back just yet. But I think it ought to reflect this reality.

As for the "television play" business, Wikipedia is not a reliable source to cite. I suggest you get input at the television wikiproject

Let's start with the fact the subtitle of the article is "(2003 film)"

Let's continue with the fact that among its awards and nominations are:

Directors Guild of Great Britain Stephen Frears Nominated for " Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Television Movie/Serial" (emphasis added)

Not "Television Play".

That is because that terminology is not the predominant wording. it was in the 60s and 70s. And some people still refer to it that way. Like they call the radio "wireless" or refer to "gramaphone records". But that doesn't make it the accurate word for Wikipedia.

And internationally - remember Wikipedia is a worldwide resource not just a UK resource

International Emmy Awards Nominated Emmy for Best TV Movies/Miniseries (emphasis added)

Not "Television Play".

Last - and certainly not least

I did a quick Google search. Not in itself definitive. But in conjunction with the above very important points - it underscores the point I am making.

The search was for "The Deal" + "Tony Blair" (so it related to THAT particular "Deal")

Then I added - one at a time - the following: "tv play" "tv film" "film"

The results speak for themselves:

"the deal" + "tony blair" + "tv play" = 90 results

"the deal" + "tony blair" + "tv film" = 895 results

"the deal" + "tony blair" + "film" = 55,200

I've changed most of it back except for the "well-documented" part; regardless of whether or not the pact happened as described, you are right to say it is "well-documented".

Thank you

I suggest neither of us edits the article at all, pending further comment by members of the film and TV wikiprojects, as both of us are in danger of violating WP:3RR and edit warring.

I am happy to hold off on the fact vs legend part. But I have added back the Guardian source. We shouldn't delete relevant sources that enlighten readers.

I am happy to leave Morrissey in front of Sheen for the moment - but I think that should change ultimately to reflect the realities of one equally-billed co-star being much better known than the other co-star.

In good conscience I can't leave the "TV play" wording as it is. It is an anachronistic description and defies how The Directors Guild Of Great Britain defines it - not to mention all the other factors.

I am very happy to continue this debate though. In a civil manner.

Davidpatrick (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Idea. Happy to continue our civilized dialogue on the Talk Page of the article!

Davidpatrick (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial)

Hello. Your userpage doesn't say, but I hope you're British, and you don't mind my asking for help with Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial). I think it is pretty darn close to Featured Article quality now, but I wouldn't label my British excellent (I just remember what I learned in school once and what I read online). I also occasionally suck at choosing the right prepositions, or single words and grammar (e.g. tenses). If you have the time, would you read through the article with a very close eye for un-British-ness or non-English-ness? I'll still tweak the prose here and there over the next week (at least) before I want to jump into the cold FAC water, so there is also no real hurry. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

James Nesbitt

I have reviewed the article you nominated for GA stautus and it is currently on hold. Please go to the articles talk page for any improvements that need to be made before it can pass the good artilce criteria. If/when such improvements have been made or you feel I have made a mistake feel free to leave a message on my talk page so I can get back to you quicker! BigHairRef | Talk 00:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the citation in the review, I was referring mainly to the second bit about practising at school. As you seemd to find it reasonably quickly, you wouldn't have a link to the Times's website for it would you? Assuming it's The Times (i.e. UK) I couldn't find one when I looked and given the WP:BLP criteria even though it's not detrimental I wanted to check if there was a weblink or if it was only from the original paper. BigHairRef | Talk 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Good Article Nomination of James Nesbitt

Congratulations! The article you nominated for Good Article status (James Nesbitt), has passed after I reviewed it. Please see its review at Talk:James Nesbitt for more information. Please consider reviewing another article yourself at Wikipedia:Good article nominations to help free up the continual backlog. Well done. BigHairRef | Talk 00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Market Shipborough Town Sign.jpg

Hello Bradley0110

You are correct in that this image already exsist in commons but further investigations seem to show that that image will soon be deleted as it seems to have been uploaded from the website(http://www.swaffhamonline.co.uk/pages/kingdom.html) that I got my version from, but according to the summary and license it is claimed by Sam Knox, which is fine if he took the photo. If he did not then the version that I uploaded at least has the right rationale and license and will not be deleted.  stavros1  ♣ 

Further Thoughts

Having now looked at the gallery on the above website it may well be that Sam Knox has lifted all the images on the Kingdom Page. If this is the case, and he did not take these photos himself then as they stand they will all need the correct licensing and rationales placed on there summary’s or they will be deleted by one of the Bot’s at some point..  stavros1  ♣ 

Title shot of Lost in Austen

Hi. Since an intertitle shot and the DVD cover probably won't pass WP:NFC at the same time, what do you think of using just the DVD cover[3] in the info box? It would also show the characters and the somewhat-comical mood. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gaaahh

Hi, don't worry about it. It seems obvious that Mirren probably did ask her about being a female editor of a major publication (why else would she ask to meet her?), and it would have been great had the writer of the article said that explicitly, rather than leaving it tacit. If the consultation was of any use to Mirren, I'm sure it'll pop up again in another source as the film's release approaches. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 07:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Beautiful People (UK TV series)

On 15 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beautiful People (UK TV series), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bathurst GA

Yeah, it's well-referenced, and shouldn't be too far off GA. I'm sure between the two of us we can combat any clean-up requests. Joking Apart is nearing the end of its second FAC, so I thought it would be good to get Bathurst up to GA. After this, I'm aiming to get List of Joking Apart episodes to Featured List. I've put a copyed tag on to hopefully smooth out those problems before the nom. (It's all part of my own little Moffat project.) The JPS^{talk to me} 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Brand/Ross Mail on Sunday article

Hi Bradley. I know the article is a bit biassed so I'm glad you've found a more suitable one. At the time I just wanted to add something as a reference and as a Mail reader that one sprung to mind. I also added it to Russell Brand and The Russell Brand Show (radio show) so you might want to take a look at those as well. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)