Talk:Thomas & Sarah

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:British TV shows project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas & Sarah article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Baby

Why does some nutty bloke keep putting back the stuff about Sarah's baby's disapperance not being explained. It's clearly explained in the first ep. He has obviously got a cut copy, or is just plain mad.

And yes, I know what I am talking about. I run this website: www.updown.org.uk

Steve

Please read WP:CIVIL before making further posts, and sign them as well please. As explained, it is referenced. Regardless, as a fan of www.updown.org.uk I have noticed many mistakes in that so just because you run a fanwesbite doesn't make you the authority on it.--UpDown (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. Whatever. Lord knows what "referenced" means. Have you tried taking any notice of the other people saying you are wrong?

What would satisfy you - timings from the episode where the dialogue is?

As for mistakes on updown.org.uk, email me with them. Email is on the front page. I imagine you won't as I'm pretty certain you haven't found any!

I'm outta here.

Signed Steve, or Sambda, or whatever you want me to put! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.164.20 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the other bloke who has been trying to correct this article: viz: 72.73.96.89 email me? steve.phillips@kcl.ac.uk.

Ta,

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.164.20 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again your really could be a bit more civil, but that aside, I have spotted several mistakes on www.updown.org.uk, and I say above just because you are the owner of a fan website doesn't mean you can never be wrong on that subject. Your website is greatly lacking in detailed episode & character information, so why not improve this rather than make uncivl remarks on Wikipedia. You also do need to read up on Wikipedia policies. --UpDown (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I await your email on these supposed "many" mistakes. And you keep saying you have "referenced" your claim that the disappearance of Sarah's baby is not explained in T&S, but I can find no reference other than my site and Richard's book - neither of which make this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambda (talk • contribs) 10:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may notice from the tag I have inserted at the top, this talk page is for discussing improvements for this article, so I am not going to have a debate about your website. I frankly have better things to do than e-mail you with your mistakes, which they're many. Your website while useful is not a gospel source on UpDown, and actually has very little character and plot information. It is therefore very high-handed of you to assume you know everything about the programme and make uncivil comments like "nutty bloke" and "just plain mad" --UpDown (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I frankly have better things to do than e-mail you with your mistakes, which they're many"

I thought you might say that (smirk), but without "referencing" (to use your term) any of these "mistakes".

Viewers, please draw your own conclusions! I note the mistake, for which this exchange was initiated, has not been reinstated.

(BTW, that's "there are" for the record - not "they're" which means "they are"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambda (talk • contribs) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh incidentally, I asked you for the "reference" (your term) for your statement that you had "referenced" that Sarah's baby had not be accounted for after "A Family Gathering" (and, implicitly, that your original statement had more validity than the other people posting (besides myself) who have objected to it (under the modifications list)).

I'm still waiting. I apologise for doubting your mental stability, but I have only these exchanges to go by! Email me and we might be the best of mates, as surely we both like the zenith of TV drama!