Talk:Whicker's World

[Untitled]

All you 70s and 80s people, when colour TV was first coming out in the UK, if you'd loved the series "Whicker's World", please add to the article! Uranometria 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikka Wrap

The claim that Wikka Wrap is based on Funkin' for Jamaica (N.Y.) is blog sourced at [1]. The two are not note for note identical, and even the blog source does not claim this, so it was removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Merchandising

The link to the jigsaw puzzle photo on eBay will be prone to WP:LINKROT, so it was changed to [2]. Material should be sourced before adding it. The merchandising is interesting, but not necessarily of vital importance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSTV#Media_information states that merchandising details can be added to articles about television shows. What is particularly notable about this one is that merchandising for a documentary series was (and still is) quite a rarity, such was the cultural impact of Whicker's World. 88.104.1.210 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Theme tunes

Re this edit: The Laurie Johnson and Graham de Wilde theme tunes were pieces of library music used as the theme tune. The Andrew Lloyd Webber theme tune with the Concorde titles was probably the only one written specifically for the show. So maybe it doesn't have a title other than "Whicker's World theme tune by Andrew Lloyd Webber".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was guessing the same. But apart from the Graham de Wilde theme, that whole paragraph is not very well sourced, is it? There's no reason, of course, why a piece commissioned for a given use can't have a different title of the composer's own choosing. "The Whicker's World Theme" (although really useful) sounds a bit mundane for our Baron the Lord Andrew?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No luck so far. ALW's BBC theme for the 1978 World Cup is called "Argentine Melody (Cancion de Argentina)" and his BBC theme for the 1982 World Cup is called "Jellicle Ball", which is from Cats so it isn't an original theme tune either. But no name for the Concorde music for Whicker's World.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

List

Would it be possible to include the list of episodes (in chronological order) on the Wikipage or failing that, on another dedicated Wikipage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

DVDs sets to be released in October 2017

Should these be mentioned in the article yet as they have an "official release date" of October 2017? I'm slightly wary of this, as they are a commercial product and this could be seen as advertising. They won't be "reviewed" to assess their notability until after release. And that's at least three months away. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

16th October is actually less than three months away, but this is an official release date by the official DVD rights holders. Most TV/film articles have home video/DVD release sections to them because it is relevant to the article (see WP:MOSTV for clarification). As further releases are announced, that also becomes relevant to the article - as long as it is sourced rather than mere speculation or wishful thinking. The mention and sourcing of home video releases doesn't make it WP:SPAM. 31.48.235.245 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless another editor can point to a clear policy or has a strong counter-argument, I will not remove again. But I'm still unsure why we can't just wait. I mean, I thought that an encyclopedia should generally deal with things that have definitely happened. Martinevans123 (talk)

As an encyclopedia, Wiki wouldn't be dealing with speculation or rumour, particularly if it's unsourced, but that's not the case here. You'll notice that there are whole articles for "forthcoming" releases (new films, TV shows, books, albums, etc.) and these are fine as long as they meet the guidelines for inclusion and contain adequate sources. Any forthcoming DVD releases of an existing TV show that is notable enough to have its own article (as Whicker's World does) would certainly warrant mentioning in the relevant DVD section once it has been officially announced (which in this case, it has). 31.48.235.245 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed, thanks. And that troubles me even more. I wish there was a very simple rule across the whole project mainspace saying "we can't refer to things that haven't happened". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It depends in what way you mean that, Martin. Some people might assume that something cannot be notable until it actually happens. We cannot report on an earthquake that may happen next year because there is no substantial evidence it ever will happen nor can one be scheduled (this is where WP:CRYSTAL would apply). But there are things, such as media products, that can be notable before they have been released - or even before they have been made. The new Star Wars film, for example, has not been completed yet and is not due out for several months, but there is an article for it. There's also an article for the new Star Trek TV series even though it wont be screened until September. But there are already things we know about these two products through valid sources (the studio, the press, etc) which isn't just speculation. A common sense approach applies when including things that have yet to pass, but when a studio or distributor or publisher makes an official announcement about a forthcoming product, then the announcement itself has already come to pass. If they change the date or cancel the release altogether, the article can always be changed to reflect that. 31.48.235.245 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Somebody seems to be very keen to mention this, which suggests a possible WP:COI. Please bear in mind that this is an article about Whicker's World, not Amazon or eBay. Generally speaking, it isn't necessary to list available books, videos etc beyond what is encyclopedic for a reader's understanding of the subject matter. The article is wandering off at a tangent here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: It's now time for a direct question to 31.48.235.245: are you involved with these videos in some way? The average person would not be insisting on adding a mention of videos that will not be released until three months into the future. This is now near to edit warring because you are insisting on having this despite concerns about policy being raised on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I am nothing to do with Whickers World or the DVD company. I am simply a Wiki editor adding relevant details to an article. You have already been directed to WP:MOSTV which clearly states that details about home video releases for TV shows is a valid inclusion for articles about the TV show itself. Please familiarise yourself with these guidelines before you edit any further articles. This has nothing to do with Amazon or eBay and no links to either of those sites have been included. This is an official announcement from the DVD rights holders for Whickers World. Any home video releases are totally relevant to the article. Please do not revert this again as the removal of sourced relevant information can be construed as deliberate vandalism. 31.48.235.245 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I still think that it could easily wait until October, because it isn't of key encyclopedic importance at this point. Merchandise can easily be found in a web search.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ian, I have looked through this article's edit history and I can see that you have had this problem before (July 2013) when you were also trying to remove relevant details about home video releases and merchandising tie-ins. I would have hoped in the 4 years since then you would have made yourself familiar with WP:MOSTV. So why havent you? If the guidelines clearly state such details belong in an article, then why can't you accept it? You don't seem to have a clear understanding of WP:CRYSTAL either and your editing now, as it was back then, is becoming disruptive. Please familiarise yourself with Wiki guidelines before you edit articles as you will end up doing more harm than good. 31.48.235.245 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I've got nothing against mentioning merchandising tie-ins but it needs to be done sparingly. In some cases, it isn't adding significantly to a reader's understanding of the subject. Mentioning an upcoming DVD release three months in the future is a good example of this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it's just that - an opinion. Wikipedia's guidelines fully support the inclusion of details like this, and I would hardly say that the DVD and Merchandising sections of this article are unreasonably long in comparison to the rest of the article. Mentioning DVD releases is relevant. Mentioning forthcoming DVD releases is also relevant, as long as its from an official source and not just rumour or speculation. We can mention the ones due for release in October because they have been officially scheduled, the cover art has even been produced for them, etc. We couldn't mention any releases after those ones though until they are officially announced, even if we think Network plan to release the entire ITV Whickers World series, which they seem to be doing now. 31.48.235.245 (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the new Star Wars film, is it? This isn't the new Star Trek TV series, is it? It's a little bit further down the entertainment/ media foodchain? I'm really not sure how a reader's understanding of Whicker is enhanced by knowing that there are two DVD box sets of previous TV programmes due out in October. The only benefit I can see will be to the bank balance and reputation of Network Distributing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It makes no difference how "important" Whickers World is in relation to Star Wars or Star Trek, I was using those two as an example about articles that pertain to "future events". I have tried to explain to both of you (assuming you are both two separate people) that Wiki's guidelines at WP:MOSTV support the inclusion of such information about home video releases. it is irrelevant whether you agree with the guidelines, only that you adhere to them. If either of you remove sourced, relevant details from this article again, both accounts will be reported and blocked. 31.48.235.245 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Poor editing again. It is never vandalism if other editors have politely expressed their concerns on the talk page. You must be the only person who thinks that the upcoming release of a DVD box set of Whicker's World in three months' time is major news that everyone must hear about. Be careful of WP:BOOMERANG here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:ianmacm. I think we should wait until they are actually released and get a review. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in the business of providing information. It's not only appropriate but it's actually encouraged to include details of home video releases and that includes upcoming releases - as the IP user above has already stated. So why is this even being debated? Whether the release date is in two weeks or two months makes no difference as long as there's an official release date given, which there appears to be. The integrity of the source is not in question. The formatting of the source could have been better, but I've taken the liberty of fixing that myself. For future reference, if there is a content dispute and you want to remove something that isn't a violation of existing guidelines or policies, then you will need to discuss and gain a consensus. At present, you are simply deleting sourced details purely on a whim. MassassiUK (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether you could kindly link to the policy or guidelines that provides this "encouragement"? This is being debated because at least two editors think the addition is worthless. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say absolutely worthless, but October is still some way off and it isn't that important at the moment. The fact that the source is http://networkonair.com/ shows that the tills of the website are a factor in who might find this important.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right, not worthless for networkonair.com. But after October, fair enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, two editors tag-teaming against another does not make a consensus. A consensus is not a majority vote.
The manual of style for TV articles states in its Home Media section: This section should be used to detail the series release on home media (VHS, DVD, etc.; written as prose) and other general distribution such as being added to a streaming service (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.). When something specifically appears in a 'Manual of Style' guideline, Wikipedia is encouraging its use in order to make its articles more accurate and complete. That is what the guidelines are there for.
The only questions you need concern yourself with are the following:
1) Is it relevant? Yes it is, as Whicker's World is notable enough to have its own article and therefore releases on home video are highly relevant, as the Manual of Style dictates.
2) Is it reliably sourced? Yes it is, from an official source no less, namely the DVD distribution company who hold the rights to Whicker's World. Furthermore, WP:Reliable Sources states in its Vendor and e-commerce section: Although the content guidelines for external links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages e.g. that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. If you can find a non-commercial source that confirms the same information about the forthcoming Whicker's World DVD releases, please feel free to add it to the article. If you can't, then leave the current source in place.
3) Does its addition to the article contravene any other Wikipedia guidelines or policies? No, it does not. It neither contravenes WP:CRYSTAL as you claimed (which pertains to unsourced and unverifiable speculation), nor does it contravene WP:SPAM as you are suggesting it is. As per the guidelines at WP:CITESPAM: Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. In fact, there are no guidelines or policies that support your removal of these details.
As for your assumption that nobody would find details of forthcoming DVD releases worthwhile or informative, I can tell you that I certainly did. I never would have known about further releases until I had seen the article's edit history, so you are making wrongful assumptions as to its value. I'll stress again, Wikipedia is in the business of providing information. MassassiUK (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it says ... the series release on home media, not ... the series future release on home media. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say "the series past release on home media..." either. The section is for any relevant information about home media releases, be that past, present, or future. And if it's going to be a future release, it needs to be sourced - which it is. MassassiUK (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

So maybe there's a case for making that description in the guidelines clearer. Maybe it's useful to you personally and maybe its useful to networkonair.com by increasing their order books. But I still fail to see how this information helps in the understanding of the programme, by the average reader, if the material is not even available. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that policy has been interpreted very loosely here. I've never said that it would be completely irrelevant once the DVDs were released, but all we have got at the moment is a release date from the company itself. Not an ideal source and WP:CRYSTAL applies here. I've known releases that were pulled at the last minute.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war over this because it isn't important enough. As I've said all along, this isn't hugely important until the DVD box sets are released, particularly if the only source is the company itself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Then don't edit war over it. Allow the article to be inclusive of all relevant details as per the manual of style guidelines, which is intended to make it a more informative and better article. MassassiUK (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)