Talk:Mr Selfridge

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

itvmedia.co.uk

Hi. I am failing to see why itvmedia.co.uk is a bad source and should be removed. Even if it wasn't run by ITV themselves doesn't make it a bad source. Thanks

It is not a bad source. But the citation removed had a URL that could not be accessed. There is an article on the show at the website - but the content is different. In the context given, I feel I was correct to remove it. But I do plan on replacing it with another source.Rain the 1 18:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not what it says in your edit summary. Anyways we shouldn't remove sources where the content has changed or is now dead. --JetBlast (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary states I was putting the rubbish sourcing out. Mission acomplished. I really cannot see the issue here - I was attemting to tidy the article. I certainly do not support removing information because of linkrot. But I only removed the suspect source.Rain the 1 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[1] - Suffragettes riot storyline.
[2] - Episode 7 press release
[3] - Ratings dip, beating the BAFTAs.
[4] - Selfridge reviewRain the 1 19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non free image

I have been told to discuss the prospect of allowing a second non-free image in this article. I did the decent thing and removed the cast shot from the article. Then I was challenged and pointed in the direction WP:NFLISTS. Which I found funny, because while it is a small section with a list - this article already has one non free image. So please do not use that as a weapon. And to tell me to discuss it on the talk page - I am sorry but I did not see a discussion to begin with. I like to asume good faith where applicable - but in this case I wouuld accuse the editor of adding in cast shots just for the sake of it. An article that could do with many improvements - yet the contribuation is in-universe plot updates and glamourisation with images. The cast shot is bias in anycase - why should those select few cast members get pride of place - what is the reason for that - is that to suggest they are the most important characters - as a reader I would assume so. But knowing more about the show that is not the case.Rain the 1 13:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had Piven not been depicted in the title shot - then I may have been more supportive. There is an adbreak title card that could have been an alternative. What was with intentionally causing white space too?Rain the 1 13:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all your opinion. Those select few as you put it were decided by ITV publicity. They are listed in the front titles, Other cast are listed in the end titles so ITV don't consider them main cast. White space could be removed by getting rid of the silly table and using column breaks. Who said you can only have one non-free image. Some common sense is needed. Titlecards in the infobox are always first choice when available. REVUpminster (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite the assumption. In your view only cast members mentioned in the opening titles deserve to have their characters depicted in the article. Mr Grove and Miss Mardle are featured just as much with their own storyline - yet they are not to be seen. I could assume and say that ITV used their most well-known stars for the publicity shot. They only included a fraction of names in the titles so it did not look cluttered. You can assume all day long - but who is right - well there needs to be a source to differentiate the regular from the guest cast. I am aware that more than one non-free image could be used - if there was reason. But at present there is not much prose that really needs illustrating. Non-free media should be used (on the advice of consensus) sparingly and remember that text can perfectly illustrate the point. Sometimes it may not but due to no one adding information we currently do not know. As for the table being silly - that is your opinion. But what I will say about it, atleast it is fully sourced. An improvement on the previous list that categorised characters with little evidence and did not have source in sight.Rain the 1 13:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles

I have removed the addition of a profiles section. This was not discussed and it would be more acceptable if there was more effort. So I do not feel bad to simply remove it. For there was no source in sight - just original research, which is not suupport by the community. Rather insulted too - as editors have spent their own time providing sources and useful content, only for another to throw in extras without sources. But there question would still remain - how useful is it? Is is going into to much detail? Is this the essential guide to the characters of Mr Selfridge? Why is it really needed.Rain the 1 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was useful even though it used words like loyal beautiful, abusuve which I was tempted to take out but I am not a deletionist editor as all knowledge is useful. As for references the same ITV press pack can be used. For Tony Travers this: http://www.1883magazine.com/film/film/will-payne Maybe someone else will have some thoughts to get a consensus. REVUpminster (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the character profiles was the press pack referenced in the right hand column. It was not 'original research'. No-one is trying to insult you by editing the page. Since the table is there, one extra column positioning the characters in the drama does not seem excessive.jamestweeter —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a complicated table (and why sortable?) being used instead of the simple sortable table provided in the editing box such as below?

Actor	Role	Reference
Jeremy Piven	Harry Selfridge	^[1]
Frances O'Connor	Rose Selfridge	^[1]
Aisling Loftus	Agnes Towler	^[1]

REVUpminster (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on REVUpminster, it is not that complicated. You seem like a clever editor anyway - surely you can cope with it. But if it is not the people's choice, then they should speak up. And in response to tweeter - does the press pack entirely support each peice of information you added? You have not insulted me either. This thing happens everyday on here. I have an idea, that a new column could just feature their occupation - there role within Selfridges (if one). It could be relevant then.Rain the 1 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have too engage too many brain cells for that table! Over the years I have become quite good at repairing tables and templates but I started out by adapting existing ones not realising the tools available on the editing page. Just needs a spell checker and I would love it. REVUpminster (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference notes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Cast update

Can someone verify if Amanda Abbington is still a series regular? Lauren Crace not returning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.55.225 (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Series 3 episode length, UK vs US

PBS-WGBH started broadcasting Series 3 on 29mar15. They put it in a 2-hour slot and included 86min of actual show content. If the original UK shows are really 44-46min, then it appears this would be a fairly complete presentation of the full content of the first two UK episodes. (How will WGBH be grouping the rest of this series?)-71.174.183.177 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ended in 2016, over after 4 seasons

www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-03-12/mr-selfridge-came-to-an-end-and-twitter-got-really-emotional/

Mr Selfridge came to an end and Twitter got really emotional

Jeremy Piven, Katherine Kelly and Amanda Abbington bid farewell as the doors finally closed on ITV's shopping drama

This show came to an end in early 2016 after 4 seasons; it was not renewed. The article should say so, in some rather definite way.-73.61.15.48 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[notes-1] Cite error: The named reference notes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]