Talk:Keeping Up Appearances/Archive 1

Onslow

I always believed that Onslow got hurt on the job and was retired because of his injuries and collecting workman's (aka work person's) compensation. Any insight into whether Onslow is on welfare or workman's comp.?

My understanding of the series is that he is on the dole, and he supplements this income by playing the ponies.Williamskidfears (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is conflicting content about the dog which always barks at Hyacinth - is it a stray or does it belong to Onslow?acahopkins (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The dog belongs to Onslow. That point in mentioned in (I believe) one of the earlier episodes in the series. Onslow tells Richard that the dog adopted them and she lives in the car. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting..

NEW: In reading the comments below, I disagree completely. There should be a Running Gags section, as I think it's quite important to include. Also, I think the plot of the show is way too long. It should be simple: "A woman obsessed with her social standing tries to impress those around her with annoying antics' Not that exactly, but something short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.226.140 (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should split the Running Gags section.. I think the page could possibly be used for a more detailed synopsis of the show? I don't know.. just a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikay (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Personaly I think the running gags section need so to go completly. Most sitcom pages don't have one, and I think the most important running gages should be merged into the plot section (the Dad's Army and Fawlty Towers articles do this well). Many of the running gags could also be deleted as many of them aren't really important enough to be on a encyclopedia. I also think the "Vechicles" section should be deleted, it's excessive information for Wikipedia (a Keeping Up Appearances fansite maybe). --Berks105 16:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with the removal of the vehicles section. It's completely irrelavent. It might be better to, like you said, try and incorporate some of the more important gags into the plot. If I have time at the weekend, I'll have a go.. :) - Mikay 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and help also. It could take some time!--Berks105 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. All in the name of Wikipedia though, eh? - Mikay 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But this show is composed of nothing but running gags! If you drop that section, all that's left to describe are the opening and closing credits.

70.88.213.74 19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I removed the "hyacinth gleefully reciving a call from sheridan" picture(in running gags section) as it is not not the main series or not real (edited) -- Andrewworth 19:19, 11th February 2007 (UTC)

Typos corrected, and added Onslow's beer and crisps

216.78.39.212 22:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Geoff, in Atlanta

Thanks, but that's the kind of thing that should be left in an edit summary, not on a talk page Will2710|^Talk! 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot for the show...

The previous plot outline, although the writer has done a perfectly reasonable job, I’ve changed it again because it seemed to zoom into commenting on the smaller issues of the plot; for example "Mrs. Fortisque (excuse the spelling of her name)". It seems more relevant to include a plot outline with explanation on the main characters and idea of the show; rather than such smaller insignificant issues. Onslow’s slobbishness, Hyacinth hiding her family away are just two of the more significant features, and are both wider and central to the plot.

If there are any further issues you'd wish to speak to me regarding the plot alterations I’ve made, you’re welcome to post a message to me. Thanks Wiki users, lets keep making it good!

Chris C. Nichols

Firstly, can you remember to sign your posts please and to try and leave edit summaries. Secondly, I do not see anything wrong with the current plot summary and the revisions made by User:Chris C. Nichols are mainly unencyclopaedic and, to be frank, unnecessary. He has been told this by a few people, and I do hope he listens this time. If he believes there are any errors on the current plot summary, could he mention them here first before changing them? --UpDown 10:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't broadcasted by the Portuguese TV. It was made a new one based on the real one with Portuguese actors. Though still is broadcasted by BBC Prime on national cable.

Opening and closing titles

The point of the section's inclusion is that they demonstrate Hyacinth's OCD. To say it's "too much information" is a lame excuse. As for it "doesn't need to be described like that": rewrite it if necessary. - Dudesleeper · Talk 08:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Where your reference for an "OCD", thats your POV. There is absolutely no need in an encyclopedia to describe the opening credits at all, and especially not in this detail. It's totally over the top. This is not a fansite, and that bits smacks of a "trivia". If you really want it in then a one or two sentence in the episode section is the place, not a whole section. --UpDown 10:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll wait for input from other editors before removing a whole section. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest when the section has only just be inserted you shouldn't really do that. I'll remove it unless other editors agree its a good idea, in my eyes its totally over the top. And I note you havent answered my points above. --UpDown 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it's more like OCPD. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And I didn't state in the article that she has OCD or OCPD, so a reference isn't necessary, but it appears I'm not alone in my thinking. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What people say on forums and the like are equally unimportant. But the main point so much detail (3 paragraphs, with information like the price of the stamp) is completly riduclous. One or two lines at most in "Episodes" section is all. The opening titles are not at all important to the programme. --UpDown 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion should go somewhere in the above comment. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you ever going to answer my points. It is all trivial information, and frankly I can't believe you can think it otherwise. Why does the opening warrant so much attention? To prove your POV??--UpDown 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I like to add information to Wikipedia; you like to remove it. Therein lies the problem. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you don't answer the point. Wikipedia is not the place for all information, hence why we don't have trivia sections. If you don't answer my points I'll presume you have no argument and will remove it. --UpDown 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Points aren't questions. Which question am I supposed to be answering? - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you follow the "what links here" link in the opening credits article, you'll see this isn't the only article to mention opening and closing credits. For example, I did the same thing here and nobody complained. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why you think such a detailed explanation of the opening credits is necessary? It's pure trivia. There is no proper source for an OCD, so it is not there to prove that. And even it was, its still too much detail. It could be written in one or two sentence with "Episodes" section. And just because you did it somewhere else does not make it acceptable here. And mentioning them is fine, describing in this detail is not. --UpDown 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, OCD isn't mentioned in the article. We can dissect episodes, so why can't we dissect the credits? It's a good accompaniment to the infobox image, in my opinion. And I have already merged the section into "Episodes". - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten it, I think this is better as it it not to much detail but still gets the main points accross. --UpDown 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The flower wasn't put inside the milk bottle, hence I removed the merge you made of those sentences. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Family tree

"Daddy"

?

Onslow

Daisy

Hyacinth

Richard

Rose

Violet

Bruce

Sheridan

Stephanie was Onslow and Daisy's daughter, and she had Kylie. Basketball110 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just been reading a biography of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.(George & Elizabeth by David Duff) She had sisters called Violet, Hyacinth and Rose. I wonder if this inspired the author?Australian Susan (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Remade as Family Front on PTV

I'm removing this reference because a google & yahoo search doesn't reveal any links between the two. - Paul 1978 01:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Buckets.jpg

Image:The Buckets.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Milk bottle note

Isn't there a way of reaching a consensus in the Talk Page rather than reverting each other's edits? Personally, I think the note is for the milkman, and has nothing to do with Hyacinth's invatation to the Major. She could be asking, for example, for some cream or some eggs, or even to cancel whilst she's away on the QE2! :P - ǀ Mikay ǀ 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've learned that some users believe they're right no matter what the consensus on the talk page may be, so it's easier to join their game than to waste time typing. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, she could be inviting the milkman to her candlelight supper. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the titles, you can clearly see the word Milkman on the note (see the screencap below).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/geordieboy56/KeepingUpAppearances.jpg Paul 1978 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! Nice work. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What ever edit war you all are having, I don't want to become a part of, but this is it: the bottle stopper (or whatever) says "MILKMAN," and the letter Mrs. Bucket (it's Bouquet) is writing is to the Major. Hope that helps! Basketball110 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That was three months ago, so I think hope we're over it now. Thanks for your input, however. - Dudesleeper Talk 17:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Buckets.jpg

Image:The Buckets.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done.--UpDown (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Broadcasting in other countries" section

I saw an editor remove a similar section from another article, stating that it was unnecessary because this is the English Wikipedia. I tend to agree with him. Thoughts? - Dudesleeper | Talk 18:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe this section should be removed. Broadcasting in other countries can be relevant, but as a referenced paragraph not an unreferenced list of every foreign channel it has ever aired on. I would agree to delete it.--UpDown (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. As UpDown mentioned, a paragraph of prose, usually in the production or episodes section, that is referenced can go to show notability and reception, but an unreferenced table is unnecessary and just clutters things. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As it has been nearly a month since the discussion ended, and no one has disagreed with the removal of the section I have removed it. I will also use this discussion to remove the same section on My Family.--UpDown (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Internal and external links

I added the internal links because, as stated here in the Manual of Style: However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. Indeed, readers who jump directly to a subsection of interest must still be able to find a link.

And the Amazon external link was removed because: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services [should normally be avoided]. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. - Dudesleeper | Talk 18:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A "important technical term" yes, the actors names no. This article is not really "long" either, and I think a third linking of the actor's names is not needed. With regard to Amazon, if you can find an alternative reference for that release date, fine, otherwise the reference is needed.--UpDown (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is that the only release given a reference? If it's because the exact date is given, I'd be happy to just list the year if it means we can wave bye-bye to the Amazon link. - Dudesleeper | Talk 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that is the only one anyone has bothered to reference! I would much prefer to keep the reference so we can have a exact release date. I have just tidied it using [citeweb] and would be happy to cite other dates.--UpDown (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Going to just the year would not reduce the need for a reference. It is needed in either sense, and for basic details such as release date and contents, Amazon is considered an acceptable "last resort" reference in the absence of others. The other DVD releases also need referencing.AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While in general, commercial links should be avoided, if no other reference can be found. However, there is plenty of precedence for using an Amazon link as a reference for the release of a DVD, so long as it is a straight link with no affiliate code is added. Quite a few featured articles have Amazon as a reference for the release date and contents of a DVD or CD, which have no ISBNs. Also, note that the EL policy, while sometimes applicable to references, does not always apply as the official product site (which is primarily to sell a product or service) is quite acceptable as a reference for basic details. Now a buy link in the ELs would certainly be bad and would need to be axed immediately. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the DVD releases, would anyone be opposed to putting the releases into the more standard table format, with a short prose introduction? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me.--UpDown (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Has Life Lessons from Onslow been released to DVD? 71.63.15.156 (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so, not yet. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been released on DVD, at least in the USA. Any site which comes up with Region 1 Discs for sale (Amazon (USA), play.com etc) has it listed and (subject to stock) for sale. I cant find a reliable source for when it was actually released. No DVD release is coming up for Region 4 or Region 2 Discs, and it is questionable whether it will be ever be released outside the USA.Garej (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sisters' surnames

Someone has put Violet's (and Bruce's) surname as Paddock. Has anyone actually seen a reference to what their surname actually is? I have the two books, and don't recall ever seeing a reference to their surname. Applicable end credits (where relevant) simply name them as "Bruce" and "Violet".

May it be better to remove the surname from Violet/Bruce until someone can provide a reference which can (reliably) state that Paddock is correct.

On a similar note, if anyone actually knows the names of Daisy's, Onslow's, Daddy's and Rose's surnames (none are again, actually mentioned either in the series or books) then it is worthwhile putting them in. Also, there is no mention of Hyacinth's maiden name. Garej (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just had a thought, could it be from Life Lesson's from Onslow that it is stated? I have not seen this (as I do not live in the USA), but either way, as I have said in the above post, unless someone can insert a reference to verify that the surname Paddock is correct, it may be better off being removed.Garej (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the surname appears on the front of their house(along with the image of a horse) in the episode where Hyacinth arranges a BBQ at Bruce and Violet's. Williamskidfears (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Paddocks is the name of Bruce and Violets house (a paddock being a field where horses or in this case ponies can kept) not their surname Penrithguy (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

2005 and 2008 episodes

The IMDb lists nine episodes with original air dates in November and December 2005 and two in 2008. They have appeared fairly recently on the IMDb (during the past few monts or so), so I was wondering if anybody has any idea where they come from. Have there actually been episodes made in 2005 and 2008 (which hardly seems likely) or is it just somebody playing a trick on the IMDb by giving them false information? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 10:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Street View for locations

I have included a link to Google Street Maps in relation to the location details of the Bucket's house. I have yet to find Onslow and Daisy's. I have aquired permission from the current owner of the house to let Wikipedia to keep the link on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Chris21192 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Digging around on the web looks like Onslow and Daisy's was 3 Michell Close, Stoke Aldermoor, Coventry. Keith D (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have successfully added the street view for Onslow and Daisy's house, however only two shots can be viewed from the close. User:Chris21192 12:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Plot summary" section

This section is awfully lengthy for a summary, it could use some organization or something. - Kyle1081 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be more concise, the vehicles section and running time section are also not necessary. However, from a review of the talk page it is clear that one user sees this as their "pet project" and embarks on lengthy, circular discussion regarding any change until folk simply get bored and move on. As shall I... 90.220.134.141 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)