User talk:Bob Castle/archive7

Userpage | Talk page | Talk page archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | Sandbox | New comment

For messages from 15/1/06 to 30/7/06, see my first talkpage archive.
For messages from 31/7/06 to 21/12/06, see my second talkpage archive.
For messages from 31/12/06 to 4/5/07, see my third talkpage archive.
For messages from 13/05/07 to 15/9/07, see my fourth talkpage archive.
For messages from 21/10/07 to 2/4/08, see my fifth talkpage archive.
For messages from 16/4/08 to 17/9/08, see my sixth talkpage archive.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joking Apart

Hi Bob. I decided to remove those two images. The didn't help the article a great deal, and they were just going to attract opposition. The nom seems to have stalled... If this were a Simpsons or Dr Who episode they'd be a dozen supports by now. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Foot in the Grave article

Please see the discussion page for this article. Edito*Magica (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I thought i'd let you know that I've changed the tense back to present in the plot summary, because for example saying the series "featured" the exploits of Victor Meldrew, implies it no longer does, or the series no longer exists. Since it is regularly repeated on TV and is avliable on DVD, saying the series "features" the exploits of Victor seems to make more sense.

Secondly, you'll notice i've removed cast names in the plot summary, because they are included in the character list underneath...so they weren't really needed in the plot summary section. Please don't hesitate if you want to discuss the issue further. Thanks. Edito*Magica (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: i've re-added refs but at different more appropriate places in the plot summary...but they are now there.

The Thirty-Nine Steps

Article has been moved. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi de Hi

Hi there Bob! Thanks so much for your help and comments in response to my suggestions in the Talk Page on your "You Rang M'Lord?" article. I don't know of any other way of contacting you so using this page, hope this is right! I've found out a lot about Wikipedia since I joined and learnt a lot, but I've been trying to make a minor change to the "Hi de Hi" article and run into difficulties and despite trying my best to correct them I feel I'm getting it in a mess and don't want to do any more damage.

As you're a fan of British sitcoms and have been so helpful to me before, I wonder if you could advise? Sorry if I am annoying you, but I find the guides to editing Wiki helpful but so detailed and long they're very daunting.

Again, it's an excellent article but the author has made a slight mistake in stating that Gladys Pugh has won every "Most Popular Girl Yellowcoat" since she joined in 1955. In fact, she won it every time until 1959, when she is beaten by Sylvia Garnsey. I have corrected this, but wanted to add a footnote with a link to an episode guide to try and back up and prove my edit by linking to a episode guide which describes the episode which proves that Sylvia beat Gladys in 1959.

However I managed to add the footnote and get the little (1) next to it, but when you click on it it just loops you back to the page. Can you see what I might have done wrong please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSteve (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much again Bob! I'm getting the hang of it now, more or less! You've been really friendly and helpful and I'm enjoying Wikipedia very much. I'll ever try and sign this! RSteve (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One foot in the grave

Hi, What do think about moving the character descriptions to a new page?...there is already character description in the plot section, and i think the character section does make the page a little too long? Tell me what you think. Thanks.Whirl*editing (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. People not visiting spin-off pages has always been a concern of mine, and i will begin tidying the character descriptions up soon. Thanks.Whirl*editing (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Problem

Hello! Your submission of National Health Service Lottery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gary King (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Minister

I think it is crosstalk I didn't get your reply and it is not on the history

SimonTrew (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh my bad I see now you were talking about the move of the subject before. And I agree with you BTW. It's a good article and gets quite polished, if you do care to answer my doubts then please do, but I realise now it was different topic.

SimonTrew (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for National Health Service Lottery

On February 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Health Service Lottery, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Of The North

No, no - I was trying to remove that image, but I couldn't work out how to revert back to the version before the image was added. I'm sure there must be some simple way to revert back to a version two times ago, but I can't manage it... Bobbontybon (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twizzle

I have to admit the episode titles did make me chuckle too, but I didn't want to admit it on the edit summary! By the way, I've looked at the pages you've edited and seen a certain interest in AP Films/Century 21 shows. Have you considered being a part of the ITC Entertainment Wikiproject? It's desperately short of active members and could do with new editors joining! Howie ☎ 18:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (Newcastle Central railway station → Newcastle railway station)

Hi, Bob. As you have been previously involved in discussions regarding the name of the above mentioned article, I thought you may be interested to know there has been a request made to move and rename the article. If you'd like to get involved, please see here for the discussion which led to the request and here for the requested move poll. Regards, Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Shafto

Hi, I tried to set up a seperate page for the song as I suggested on the talk page, but that was then deleted as a dublicate. Now I find I cannot edit the Bobby Shafto page to account for the song and cannot create a seperate page. It would help the case (assuming you are happy with the plan) if you could say so on the Bobby Shafto talk page. If not send me a message when you have time so that we can work something out. Thanks--Sabrebd (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above was headed off with a promise that editing would make the distinction clear. I have found some more information on the historical figure and begun to put it into the existing article. I have it on a sandbox at: User:Sabrebd/Sandbox2 if you want to take a look. If I don't hear anything in a few weeks I will do the edit, it can always be revereted. All the best.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old St Paul's Cathedral GAR notice

Old St Paul's Cathedral has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to check one thing. The article has several deadlinks. Can you clean these up. Reply on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Adventures of Twizzle" "FOOTSO DEALS WITH DEPRESSION"

hi bob, i am the individual responsible for the "FOOTSO DEALS WITH DEPRESSION" alteration, i thank you for your (however grudging) admiration. The article edit has been the subject of an in-joke with a friend of mine (who it turns out was responsible for the mortician), and we have regularly checked the article up until fairly recently and it is only now we have become aware of its sad and untimely demise. This said, you clearly have done fantastic work on wikipedia (particularly impressed by the Blackadder) and i hope you dont consider our attempt to undermine important information such as the adventures of twizzle as underhand...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.48.94 (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard by Donald McGill

Could you please let me know if some past English usage or history or context is behind the gag in the postcard line: "I want to back the favourite, please. My sweetheart gave me a pound to do it both ways." I'm 47 and American, and I typically appreciate British humor but this one I'm not getting and that is the kind of thing that drives my curiosity. I understand that the woman is speaking to a bookmaker, although I'm not certain about that, and the meaning of "Bill Stumps" on his satchel and "The Old Firm" on the box he's standing on are lost on me. "Pound," "it," and "both ways" I can recognize for a sexual connotation, at least in American English, but I think I'm missing something else from some British context or pre-1960's history that I would like to know about, if anything's there. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.51.153 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, to tell you the truth, that's about as far as I interpreted it. It's quite possible that some of them might be horse-racing jokes. It's probably not the best example of a McGill seaside postcard, really - these might be more typical. Bob talk 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding, to bet on a horse "both ways" is to place wagers both that the horse will win and that the same horse will place, thus ensuring a payoff in the event of a second-place finish as well as first. --SSBohio 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk archiving

Hi, please remember to put wikiproject banners and the like back on the main talk page when you've archived it. I've sorted out the YM one for you. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

Hi - since you reverted my edit, please chime in at Talk:Blackadder's Christmas Carol.. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC) PS I have no sense of humour or imagination[reply]

Template:Notable fires

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not angry or upset by the deletion of {{Template:Notable fires}}, but I am disappointed that I, as a stakeholder, wasn't informed of the discussion, an act that the WP:TFD instructions recommend and point out as civil.

I originally created the template because an editor was adding redundant lists of similar fires to multiple articles, and I felt a template would be a better way to accomplish their goal. I underestimated the number of notable fires for which articles exist and ended up with a large, unwieldy navbox. IMO, each of the larger groups could be a navbox in and of itself. I think the template actually needs to be broken up into smaller templates, to allow for easy navigation among similar fires, my original intent. SInce I've always been more inclined to keep and fix bad content, I was wondering if you had any other thoughts on this template, as you took an interest in its deletion.

I really wanted to create something useful, and, in this case, I regret that I failed. --SSBohio 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ronnie Barker

Template:Ronnie Barker has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of The Forsyte Saga (1967 series)

Hello! Your submission of The Forsyte Saga (1967 series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Forsyte Saga (1967 series)

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Forsyte Saga (1967 series), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Giants27 09:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Dad's Army

Hi, I see you archived this page because it was too long. Any idea where it has gone? The archive page is a redlink. Am I missing something? Davidelit (Talk) 05:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Hi[reply]

The Day Today

Hi, I noticed your reversion of my edit to The Day Today. Just wondering, do you really think it's an improvement? I mean, you say it now sounds weird. I looked at various guidelines and the only thing I could find that advises the present tense was WP:TENSE but that is speaking of things written about events and characters within a fictional universe, where it would sound odd to do anything else. I'm not really sure what the problem with past tense is. You say "was" sounds like it does not exist; how can a television programme possibly not exist? TDT is as non-existent as a television programme can be, insofar as no more series are being made and it is no longer broadcast. If the idea is perhaps that the lost episodes of Dr Who should use "was" and all the others should use "is", I doubt anyone would find it very helpful. Sorry to go on, it's just I tend to think that if something sounds weird it should be put into good clear language. This article does indeed sound weird. And the danger of the past tense implying that something has ceased to exist, whatever that means, seems rather smaller than the current likelihood (yes, likelihood) that someone will read the first few sentences and assume (as I did) that the programme is still being made. --82.0.11.152 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. Yeah, I know what you mean, because I sometimes used to think that myself. However, I guess the best example is a play or a book, in that they don't cease to exist just because they aren't being performed or read somewhere, or are even in print, in the same way that although it's not currently being produced or broadcast, The Day Today is still a readily accessible programme that still exists. Your example of a lost Doctor Who episode is quite good, as one could certainly say most early live television programmes 'were', in that no copies of them survive except perhaps somewhere out near Jupiter. The other factor is that all of the TV programme featured articles, which are the closest thing to a style guide for this sort of thing, all feature "is", even in the case of a discontinued programme, for example The Wire, Our Friends in the North, Making Waves (TV series), Press Gang, etc. I hope that answers the query. Bob talk 13:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sherlock Holmes Baffled

On February 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sherlock Holmes Baffled, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Channel 4 sitcoms

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mr. Bean

Template:Mr. Bean has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello again, and thank you for the barnstar! I definitely plan on continuing to upgrade these ITC articles and then nominate them for GA. Super Mario Man 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bob Castle. You have new messages at CIreland's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chances of Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons for FA

Thanks for the message - I too have been wondering about this recently. The article, in its current state, is comprehensive: it discusses reception, adaptations and media, and uses material from pretty much all the reliable internet sources that I was able to find, as well as print sources. It had to be truncated in places when it came to the GA assessment, so I wouldn't really want to add anything more to it. SilkTork's main advice after promotion concerned the "Other media" section: I'm not sure that there would be enough to sustain a dedicated subpage (one of his proposals), so prior to nominating for FA I would cut down that part slightly, perhaps by converting the text from bulleted lists to prose. However, I agree that the article definitely stands a good chance - perhaps more so than Joe 90, since Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons carries a bit more of a "legacy", so to speak, providing a greater array of topics regarding adaptations, such as the CGI update, and other media. Yes, I'll see about generally sprucing up the page in places and nominating it. By the way, thank you for the images in the "Music" section, and adding the information about motifs - it never occurred to me that the Mysteron and Captain Scarlet signatures sounded so similar! Super Mario Man 11:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be rather busy in real life for a few days, but am considering nominating the article within a week, probably after Wednesday. Despite my earlier comments, I have indeed added further information to the page, but this has mainly included extending the critical reception with a few more opinions and repositioning material as the GA review suggested. It would be fantastic if Wikipedia's coverage of the Gerry Anderson topics received its first FA. Super Mario Man 16:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dads Army

Hi

I noticed you removed my edit with the reason "rv, trivia"

Wikipedia:Trivia says "Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate" Wikipedia:Handling_trivia "It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers"

While I appreciate you have an opinion different to mine the sentence was in the correct place, not in a list of trivia and in the section it was relevant to.

Can you explain how you think this was not the case - and why you deleted it offhand rather than discuss or tag ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - have to admit the spelling was a rather bad mistake lol

The reason I worded it was that, in interviews for a profile of Le Mesuriers part, Perry and Croft said that they insisted on swapping the Aristocratic sounding Mesurier and Arthur Lowe to give it a twist - as well as that his demenour would have led to chaos if he was captain.

As for the references to Mesuriers war record there is not much on the internet and as his biography is very difficult to find apart form certain libraries (I am not a library member unforunately) it is unlikely that I would be able to source it directly. There are places that mention his army career, such as his sons website, but these are definitely not good sources unfortunately.

I would hope that someone from one of the dadas army websites could paste a page number and wquote the ref to me but even then it woulod be difficult to verify as there just aren't that many copies available.

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]