Talk:One Foot in the Grave/Archive 1

Rennovation

• Hey, deX here...I decided that the One Foot In The Grave page needed somewhat of a rennovation, and hence I have added and rearranged some information; an episode list was gained from my own private collection and some character descriptions as well as minor characters have indeed been added.

A complimentary fact box has also been added in keeping with the style of the comedy pages as a whole and it now exhibits a quote page, of which is far from complete.

More minor characters, hopefully, will be added in time.

Bye for now...

GeneralManager 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for aiming to improve Wikipedia. Please do not add material from copyrighted websites. Most of the material is taken from here, and we are not allowed to reproduce lyrics. The JPS 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed that big 'minor characters' section. It was just superfluous. Also, we are unable to use some of the images you uploaded as they are copyrighted. The JPS 22:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I have placed sections back in of which I feel are vital to the flow.

M3Plus

---

Hello there again - it seems from the edits by other wikipedians that the episode guide and minor characters section was needed. I can certify that the episode list is indeed from my own private collection of VHS tapes of the series. The site you are reffering to exhibits descriptions that are identical to the VHS descriptions.

Whether direct usage of VHS/DVD descriptions from the back of collections is indeed permitted presents a point of uncertainty for me; however a similar style has been employed on other pages concerning comedy shows.

With regards to the pictures; I have meerly followed similar traits of other pages - for they are screen captures of a BBC Television show, taken via a TV Tuner Card software, being WINTV. If I am incorrect with the placement of these images upon this page - then I apologise, however, I hope I eventually see the removal of pictures with the similar copyprotection properties from other pages.

• Thanking you for your cooperation.

GeneralManager 23:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Yeah, I feel i'd have to agree with you two chaps on this issue. I feel that the minor characters section enriches the article, much alike the Father Ted article, where many minor characters were listed.

Trudy

---

Experienced wikipedians know all about sockpuppets, so don't even try it. Please stop adding the copyrighted and superfluous material. The JPS 12:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I respect your opinions with regard to this - you obviously seem to know what is permitted in Wikipedia, yet I do not take very kindly to your aggressive accusations of me employing sockpuppets.

The pages rennovation, of which we have seen, has been a concerted three way effort between myself, a good friend of mine - M3Plus and has obviously attracted the additional female wikipedian - Trudy (of who obviously hasn't created an account, as we can see from the pages history - and I reccomend her to do so.)

As the experienced wikipedian, that you are - I would like to know, for future editing delights, of the ability for one to use content from the back of VHS sleeves and screen captured images.

Thanking you for your involvement.

GeneralManager 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The content from the back of VHS sleeves is copyrighted material, and therefore should not be copied. Screen captured images are acceptable. However, you must also ensure that they are screen captures, and are not publicity stills. Sometimes the two are hard to differentiate.

I'm sorry you found my assertions aggressive. There are not unfounded, however. The JPS 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, thankyou for clearing up that misdemeanour of myself and my chums.

GeneralManager 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the page back to how it was, due to numerous errors.

M3Plus 00:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not put back the Mr Bean reference, as this is incorrect. Furthermore, the Minor Characters section is a useful addition for fans of the sitcom, and is justified.

M3Plus 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

theme music

Anyone know who sang the theme music? It sounds to me like Eric Idle for some reason, and if it's so, that would make a good trivia addition. 65.35.93.97 06:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was Eric Idle, and it is already in the description of the show - "The theme song was written and sung by Eric Idle, who also appeared in one episode. The series also made extensive use of incidental music, composed by Ed Welch, which often hinted at a particular genre to fit the mood of the scenes" Bob 11:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I missed that My reading comprehension sucks. Jafafa Hots 07:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No probs. Bob 11:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Fawlty Towers

If you're interested in sitcoms you may wish to join my new Fawlty Towers-based wikiproject to maintain the standard, and create fabulous new articles based upon this milestone in British Comedy. If you are interested, and woud like to bcome a member, please enquire at the above link, or on my talk page for more information. Thanks Foxearth 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Result

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

Well done, the GA has passed successfully —Minun ^Spiderman 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

5th November plot additions

I have removed these comments from the plot section, as they are a little bit point of view and possibly use unverifiable words. Bob talk 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It is notable that the wives of the warring Victor and Patrick provide the level-heads and friendliness in their marriages and are the ones vainly aiming to achieve some sort of truce and normality between their husbands. This is a common theme in sitcoms, as is the general scenario of wives acting as "straight women" to their clearly comedic husbands. These traditional aspects sit alongside the more adventurous and controversial ones. As a result the show was one of the few sitcoms of recent times to appeal to mass audiences and the critics.

...strong overtone of black comedy. This was the most radical part of its format. Probably the most shocking example is an episode from the second series where an old age pensioner is murdered in a break-in. He had forsaken buying new locks in favour of gimmicky toys for his grandson following a visit from a high-pressure salesman. Other episodes feature the death or serious injury of characters and deep, melancholy reflections were commonplace. These darker elements were unquestionably bold and thought-provoking but could also leave viewers highly uncomfortable.

Recession

This is an interesting angle on the series, and would be nice to have in the situation section, but it really requires a reference to back it up: The show is set at the hight of the last recession, many old people such as Victor Meldrew were laid off from work and were unable to ever find jobs again, however much they tried. Bob talk 17:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently watching the series again on DVD and it did occur to me that in reality, even in that era Meldrew would have probably been offered job-search training etc by his old company and maybe even obtain a job in his chosen profession of security. Of course today he would probably be able to find employment quite easily even at 60, but hey that would have destroyed the whole premise of the show! However I agree that in those days if you were redundant at 50 or 60 you were automatically on 'the scrapheap' so for audiences at the time, it would have been a 'given'. --MichaelGG (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointless praise

No point to this whatsoever, but having read the One Foot In The Grave article, I just wanted to say that I think its one of the best-written pieces on this website. Excellent work to everyone who's edited it. C i d 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, whoever wrote the line "If anything could go wrong, it not only went wrong but pulled half of the universe down with it" deserves recognition :-) 160.84.253.241 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Animal Cruelty

Why no mention of the hedgehog/slipper incident? Doozy88 13:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The hedgehog was already dead and rotting. There were numerous references to animal cruelty though e.g the tortoise on the bonfire incident. Wulfruna (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

cultural impact

The current section doesn't look suitable for this, so someone else do it.

The mmorpg Runescape, which has a lot of British humour in it, (http://www.zybez.net/quests.php?id=137&runescape_backtomyroots.htm) the title is mentioned for a wizard who has all but one foot been buried. 81.155.85.98 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Bob talk 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Bob, the above poster obviously needs to get out more --MichaelGG (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several problems with the page...

There were several problems with the One Foot in the Grave article. Character description was too long for the page so a new one was created for this. The plot summary went off the point and into an episode synopsis of the first episode; it was also full of opinions and Wikipeda articles are suppose to be neutral. The plot summary is designed to summarise the key points, so there’s no need for over-the-top detail. Edito*Magica (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I note that although your account has been around for a while, your contributions are rather sparse. Could you please indicate here which specific aspects you feel are not neutral? It is worth pointing out that this article has been peer-reviewed, and it meets WP:MOS and WP:GA standards. Please do not revert further, though. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edito*Magica, rather than destroy the page, may I suggest that you make an alternative version here: Talk:One Foot in the Grave/proposed. I am not at all comfortable with your mass removals of sections: one paragraph even had a reference in it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm reviewing your edits, and I think you might have a point on some issues. The problem is that you've made some wrong decisions, and it's difficult if you make to rescue those if you make too many changes at a time. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I was in the process of mainly moving rather than removing information, however there is now text missing that I’m unable to reincorporate into the article due to its protection. Furthermore chunks describing an episode should be on the episode synopsis page, text describing the setting should be under a new sub-heading titled "setting", and not under the "plot summary" section. Furthermore a cast list is missing, and here are examples of recently removed opinionated sections, that i was going to re-write and re-incorporate into the article, but I’ll have to wait until the ban has been lifted: "The setting of the show is as a traditional cosy suburban sitcom, but it subverts this genre with a strong overtone of black comedy. The series featured highly innovative writing and outrageous comedy situations. If anything could go wrong, it not only went wrong but pulled half of the universe down with it (at least in a metaphorical sense). It is also very colloquial and thus inappropriate language used, and this is way I’ve been fixing and making the mass-alterations I have been doing to the page. Thanks for your time.Edito*Magica (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the phrases you have highlighted: interestingly, I removed them before I read your post. Cast lists, by the way, should not be included. We write in prose, not lists. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Although most of the article is better suited to prose, a cast list is an exception because it's the best way of showing which actors play which characters. A majority of articles relating to comedy shows do use cast lists. Prose isn't always the best way of displaying information, that's way infoboxes are also used. And large amounts of text doesn't mean an article is good when the same information can be conveyed in much fewer words. So don't be alarmed if expression is sharpened to make the article more concise. I've shifted some of the information under the plot summary to a new, more relevant heading. For example, as with many other comedy articles of this kind, specific episode information has been placed under the "episode" heading. The final thing is that the character synopses make the article too long, and again many articles of this kind do use a separate page for character detail...i have done the same for this one to further improve the quality of the article.Edito*Magica (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your understanding of an article being 'too long'? This article is nowhere near that. Indeed, it is missing an integral element! And, no on cast lists: see Only Fools and Horses, Yes Minister and Joking Apart, all of which have been peer-reviewed by Wikipedia editors who have concluded that it is they of the project's finest articles. I appreciate that you have views, but I suggest that as a relatively inexperienced editor you take a step back to look at how we do things.
In time, and knowledge, challenges to established practices might be a little more developed. Although you seem to have been around for a while (under at least two accounts, for some reason...?) you have not produced any good or featured content. I also note that you have previously attracted opposition with your similar renegade attempts to restructure sitcom articles (e.g. the episodes list on Keeping Up Appearances. Your talk page has an interesting history. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but that "integral element" missing is on another page. Large chunks of text on a lengthy page is just off-putting to read, and probably why the many the adjectives I brought to your attention were left undiscovered. Regardless of the above articles, a cast list is the best way of displaying that information, because it allows readers the knowledge of the cast without having to plough through paragraphs. I've also created many good articles, which, i quote, are defined as: "well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. Good articles need not be as comprehensive as featured articles, but they should not omit any major facets of the topic". Edito*Magica (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary falls into an episode synopsis and discussion about epiosdes that should be under a new heading. It is also written in the wrong tense and my edits are reverted when i correct these errors, I have tagged the article instead.Edito*Magica (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I also say that just because an article is of “star-quality”, doesn't make it perfect. Large amounts of text can indicate long-windedness. Pages shouldn't waffle on just for the sake of looking comprehensive, and should make the points with the clearest, sharpest expression possible, with the fewest words. Edito*Magica (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This article does not go into unnecessary episode description - it's very important to give the context of Victor losing his job in episode 1, as that sets up the premise for the whole show. Other examples given from episodes are also there for contextual purposes. If you want to write "with the clearest, sharpest expression possible, with the fewest words" why not write for the Simple English Wikipedia instead? Bob talk 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode one maybe, but other examples given are irrelevant for a section designed to summarise the plot. For example:

"The setting of the show is as a traditional suburban sitcom, but it subverts this genre with a strong overtone of black comedy. Renwick's scripts combined farce with elements of tragedy.[4] In the final episode, Victor is killed by a hit-and-run driver. Margaret discovers the culprit, but her reaction is ambiguous.[5][6] A number of episodes were experimental in that they took place entirely in one setting and with a small cast. Such episodes included Victor, Margaret and Mrs Warboys stuck in a traffic jam;[7] Victor and Margaret in bed;[8] and Victor being left alone in the house waiting to see if he has to take part in jury service, a framing situation not seen since some of the final episodes of Hancock's Half Hour."

This is not summarising the plot but episode information which would be more suitable under an "episode" sub-heading, along with the link to the episode page.Plot summary is also full of opinions, and the article needs a separate page for the character descriptions. Edito*Magica (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary contains many references to support it, and is fine. However, some elements of the 'characters' section is problematic in terms of original research. However, to show respect for those who wrote it, the way forward is to rewrite it by referencing reliable sources.
However, featured articles are perfect by Wikipedia's standards. This article should be trying to emulate those, not trying to make up some new style. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary is full of opinions, goes off the point to talk about episodes and is in the wrong tense. It will never be a featured article until these errors are put right. The "way forward" is to resolve the issues and then remove the tags. I have already done this once, but as my edits keep getting reverted i have no choice but use tags to draw the problems to another editor's attention. Edito*Magica (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How is talking about episodes of One Foot outside of the remit of an article about One Foot? The JPS^{talk to me} 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Because that section is meant to be a plot summary, episode information goes under the "episode" heading or on the episode synopsis page. Edito*Magica (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you possibly expect to support a description of a plot of a sitcom without reference to episodes? The JPS^{talk to me} 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See The Brittas Empire plot summary. And the style guide clearly states that lists should be excluded from prose and pages one or two long should be divided into sub-pages. Why should One foot differ from Wikipedia's manual of style?Edito*Magica (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The section should not be a list. It should written in prose, containing encyclopedic information. As per Blackadder, Only Fools and Horses, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database.

The JPS^{talk to me} 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And Cold Feet, Last of the Summer Wine both use either lists or sub-pages, and they too are featured articles. Sometimes encyclopaedic information is better displayed in a non-prose form.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by that last point - those two featured articles are both a) completely in prose and b) massive, so you've just contradicted both of your own arguments by pointing out, surely? The very reason they have sub-articles is because those series have a much larger regular cast, or in the case of Last of the Summer Wine, because it's been going for over 30 years. I mean, look at the size of the plot summary on Cold Feet - surely you're not going to say that's too long? Bob talk 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No i haven't contradicted myself. Both articles feature either a cast list or sub pages for characters if you look, but the cast list is on a separate page in a table. Wikipedia style guide states that prose should exclude lists and tables, and it is also against Wikipedia policy to remove tags before the issues have been resolved. Hardly constructive. We need to work together to resolve the problems highlighted and then remove the tags. Edito*Magica (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of the cast lists on your suggested articles are very similar to the ones on this article, though - the Cold Feet one has the characters' names first, followed by the actors, with a commentary on what happens to them throughout the series. That's what we have here, albeit admittedly less well-written. I'm quite happy to have a go at re-writing them, and adding some specific references, but just farming it off to another page, where it doesn't have any context isn't the best solution. Also, just adding multiple tags to an article because you happen to disagree with the main authors of it isn't really cricket, is it? Bob talk 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The cast lists on the examples given are lists, nothing like that on the One foot in the grave page. A cast list and then a separate page is needed for character description, as it stands and according to Wikipedia policy, the page is too long. And it's not farming it off to another page without context...sub-pages have a lead that supplies contextual information. Edito*Magica (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this if it isn't an infamous character section in an article? And what's the point in having a separate cast list if the character list already gives the names of the cast? As we've tried to point out, the reason that LotSW has a separate cast page is because it has a large ensemble cast which has constantly changed over its 30 years - what's the point in doing that for what are essentially 6 main characters? If you look above, you'll notice that in 2006 there was a similar discussion about over-long lists of characters, which was eventually resolved by re-writing the article in the way it is now. If you make this separate page, then we'll very likely see a return of descriptions of "the car mechanics" etc, again. Bob talk 09:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenses

The tenses used in the description of the characters are a random mixture of past and present. Someone needs to decide which is more appropriate and make this passage consistent. I personally prefer past tense for a series that is no longer airing, but I'm not going to change it in case others have strong views otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.110.33 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If no one does it first, I'll have a go over the weekend.  HWV 258  03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New page for character section?

What do editors think about a new page for the character section...it seems a bit too long at the moment, and characters are already described in the plot summary? thoughts please...Whirl*editing (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A spoiler?

Does the information currently in the "Production" section come under the category of "a spoiler"? How is that normally handled on WP?  HWV258  00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. We can assume that readers know that we offer a comprehensive treatment of the subject, so can expect spoilers. The JPS^{talk to me} 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Character section

There is a citation needed on the character section and some of the information there should really be cited as it provides an opinion. For example Victor is a tragic comedy character and sympathy is directed towards him as he becomes embroiled in complex misunderstandings, bureaucratic vanity and, at times, sheer bad luck. The audience sees a philosophical ebb to his character, however, along with a degree of optimism, yet his polite façade collapses when events get the better of him, and a full verbal onslaught is forthcoming. It could probably do with some trimming too. It is currently a Good article, but may need to be reassessed if the section is not improved. AIRcorn (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. On re-reading the paragraph on Victor, I find that I cannot see that it needs "trimming" at all. That is your opinion. Better to make suggestions how you would expect it to read yourself. What type of citation do you anticipate, I wonder. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 06:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

One that supports the statements that are not factual discriptions of plot. I was talking about trimming the whole section, not just Victors. It is very long when compared to the other ones and will help remove some of the original research. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I shall try copy-editing it soon. We are just approaching the autumn tests and I am looking forward to Wales beating the All Blacks. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 08:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If they do it will be an amazing game to watch. If you need any help ping me at my talk page, I am just running through old Good articles with clean up tags and would much rather they were fixed rather than delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree and am glad to meet another inclusionist. Thanks for the offer of help. I anticipate my needing to take it up. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This article deserves a geolink

The series is so closely linked to the street in which Victor Meldrew lives that the location is not just an oblique bit of trivia, it is closely bound into the plot and storyline of each episode. The plot lines make frequent use of front and back gardens and the alleyway at the rear. A link to an ariel view of these via geohack adds considerably to the readers understanding of the series. I dont believe the call for examples of its use in other film articles is relevant since only a few productions are so closely linked to one geographic location. Lumos3 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The location is not at all an integral part of it. It is a house. It could be any house in a suburban setting -- that's the point of it! The link does not "add considerable understanding" to a series about the a man's battle with contemporary life and the insanities around him, or interpersonal relationships. My request for precedents at developed articles (such as WP:GA and WP:FA) is highly relevant. The link also breaks up the prose. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the geolink being in the article. Perhaps a list of tv shows and geolinks could be brought out into a separate article (if there are enough of them to get critical mass).  HWV258  21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Such an article would be inappropriate for this topic. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't follow. I'm referring to a completely separate article (nothing to do with this topic), if the geolink is ultimately considered not fit for inclusion in this article. I guess it's okay to mention the possibility of another article so as to not throw away the geolink work already done (and to provide a different perspective on the issue).  HWV258  00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean 'List of TV shows filmed in Bournemouth', etc.? The JPS^{talk to me} 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps 'TV shows geographic filming location' (or some such). I have no strong feelings either way. It was just a suggestion in order to try and keep some information that may not be appropriate for the current article. Cheers.  HWV258  21:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I does look a bit of a mess in the article, I think, but I suppose it could always be added alongside the reference. The thing is that it's only a filming location, rather than a specific place it's meant to be set in, and after all most of it was filmed in a studio. What I am intrigued in is that there appears to be a discrepancy between the lead, which states it was filmed in Christchurch, Dorset, and the referenced section which states it to be Bournemouth. I know there was a different house in the first series, but one of them must be wrong. Bob talk 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A production needs to be added. I would have had a go with the Weber book as a source, but the amount of people coming to the article and ignoring standards of writing about television and film has put me off developing this. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, when posting a request to Wikipedia:Third opinion, be sure this is a dispute between only two editors. The whole point of a 3rd opinion is to invite a tiebreaking decision into an impasse between two editors. I see more than that here.

In any case, in my opinion, the geolink should be included but as an endnote. Just put it between <ref>...</ref> tags. That way the geolink is in the article for people to look at, but it doesn't disturb the flow of text.

In my opinion, this does add to the encyclopedic quality of the article. I remember when I lived in the DC area, friends would visit and want to see a certain staircase and house in Georgetown that appeared in The Exorcist. The point is, such geographic "anchors" intrigue people, and should be included. As long as there's a way to include it in a nondisruptive fashion, do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at the time I requested a third opinion, it was a dispute between two editors. Bob and HWV258's comments came later. The staircase to which you refer is far more iconic than this house. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My arguments have not been addressed. " One foot in the Grave " is unusual in film and TV productions in that (almost) every episode is at the same location and extensive use is made of exterior and street filming. The location, although fictional in the series, is also a real place is of interest to anyone studying the series. Most of the comments seem to concern the poor visual effect of the geolink within the text. I have looked for a less obtrusive geolink but they all seem to have the globe which links to the WikiMiniAtlas set at a standard size. I have tried putting the link in a separate paragraph and hope this is acceptable. Lumos3 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've put it in ref tags, per the third opinion's suggestion. The separate paragraph look even more hideous. Remember that the majority of the show was filmed in a studio. The use of the location is actually minimal. Can you write the section using reliable sources? Weber extensively discusses location shooting, including the deals with the residents. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For my tuppence worth, I think the current solution is a good one. Surely part of the point of the show is the fact that the events could happen in any setting, so the filming location is not massively important? However it is relevant to the production and is unobstrusive in the foot notes. However, I don't think it's necessary to include it in the infobox. If this was important then surely the infobox would include an entry for it? -Bigger digger (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I think having the location in the infobox is overkill, so I'm going to remove that. It is still in the production section. Bob talk 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Although set in a traditional suburban setting somewhere in Essex past Basildon (mentioned in 'Starbound')," (third para in "Plot") "The series was largely filmed on location in Walkford, near New Milton in Hampshire, although several clues show that the series may have been set in Hampshire – possibly Winchester.[1]" (2nd para in "Intro"). So where is it set? PhilomenaO'M (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a work of fiction. Your question cannot be answered –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 13:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Book of the same name

There is a book called One Foot in the Grave by William Mark Simmons. Should it be mentioned somewhere here or not?178.248.252.210 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As it is not about our characters here, but about Christopher Csejthe who doesn't believe in vampires. Not until he becomes one. He doesn't believe in witches or werewolves, either. Not until they make him an offer he can't refuse ... I should say "not" — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 01:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)