Talk:The Vicar of Dibley/Archive 1

Archive 1

David's degree

In the Wikipedia page for The Vicar of Dibley, MA (Cantab) is put behind David's name, this meaning Master of Arts (University of Cambridge). In what episode was it mentioned that David has this degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.134.135 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I know now. In the episode "Dibley Live", Geraldine gives David Horton's and Alice Tinker's post nominal letters at the Dibley Quiz Night. Alice's letters were obviously a joke. She refers to them as...

• Councillor David Horton, MBE, MA, FRCS - We find out his MA was from Cambridge in the episode "Merry Christmas".
• Alice Tinker, GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education - Grade 12 Graduation Certificate), PMT, TTFN (Ta Ta For Now).

The question of the county

Isn't there an episode where Geraldine is pretending to be a management consultant on the phone to someone, introducing herself as working at "Dibley Consultants" or something, and the guy says "Is that Dibley in ___shire?" (I thought it was Oxfordshire off the top of my head.) Marnanel 21:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Er... pass. If you can find out feel free to add that bit to the text. -- Graham  :) | Talk 13:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

the episode was "The Window and the Weather", and it's oxfordshire. 66.92.52.243 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

apparently Dibley is in Oxfordshire The C of E (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Character list

Couldn't the character bios be moved onto another page?

Update

This page has not been updated much since the last episodes (I have added a few things myself but there is still room for improvement. (StudentSteve 01:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Frank

Should we mention the spoiler about Frank from the Radio Dibley episode? -FZ 15:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What information do you want to add... that he's gay? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

yes- but I wasn't sure if I should add it without a spoiler warning, and the article is so short that I wasn;t sure how it would look, layout-wise.

If you do, could you make sure the article is balanced out and that other characteristics of the other characters in the show have just as many bits about them? The article could do with a lot more in that sense, but yes you will need to put a spoiler warning up before expanding it. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frank is not Gay, there is often suggestion he is Bi-sexual. The best example is the episode (Election) where Frank admits to fancying Margaret Beckett. collywobble (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank may not be gay, but he does say that he is. Personally I believe that you are right, he is bisexual, but this is not the way he describes himself and when he 'comes out', it is specifically as gay. Sky83 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that Frank is gay? He revealed it on the Vicar's radio program (which no-one unfortunantly listened to) BethEnd 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fire away, it was entered at one point but removed again by someone else for some reason - I don't really know why. -- Francs2000 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as mentioned above by me i do not believe Frank was gay as there was too much suggestion he was Bi-sexual, so to add this would be inaccurate. Please see above. collywobble (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So he is greedy then?!?!? I think falling in love with a male farm hand counts as gay!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.116.141 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i have to disagree, indeed Frank does admit to having been in love with a young farm hand (Justin) in Dibley Live, but in other episodes Frank admits to fancying a women, and having been an object of desire for Mrs Cropley in her youth. This would suggest that Franks sexuality is not clear cut, and therefore i dont think he should be marked up as gay. Being Gay suggests you are homo-sexual and not bi-sexual, they are different forms of sexual existance. collywobble (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does he say he fancies her or does he say he likes her- a world of difference! and just because a woman fancies a man doesn't mean that it makes the man straight- Will and Grace for instance! I say he is gay and should be proud! I mean the outfit he wore after his radio show at the village meeting pretty much proves it! Coz he definitely won't be pulling any birds with that on only males!!

He does in fact say he fancies her, and responds in a manner suggestive of a man interested in the female form in the later episodes (the naked young girl in the life study classes) again Mayhew Archer and Curtis supporting a suggestive bi-sexual character trait. Im not suggesting Frank shouldn't be proud of his sexuality, and I feel your missing the simple point im trying to make, there are too many examples to suggest Frank Pickle was interested in women as well as men therefore possibly making his character bi-sexual in nature. collywobble (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That is speculation and opinion. In the radio show episode Frank states 'I first discovered I was gay when I fell in love with a farm-hand called Justin'. The character defines himself as gay, which takes precedent over how you define him. 87.238.84.65 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury

It is stated in the article that in the 2004 Christmas specials the Archbishop of Canterbury makes an appearance, played by newsreader Brian Perkins. But surely it is the real Archbishop, Rowan Williams? I have watched the episode closely and am pretty sure it is. Could someone prove this? (Regularcelery 05 July 2006.)

We can't really be ruled by speculation here: if the programme editors say it isn't then it isn't. We'll need some hefty references to state otherwise. -- Francs2000 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT the real Archbishop of Canterbury.

OK then. Well if it isn't he's a VERY good likeness! And obviously I hadn't watched the episode closely enough to see the credits!! (Regularcelery 05 July 2006.)

I have this episode on DVD. Is it worth a watch to catch the credits? Coolmark18 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Parish Council or Parochial Church Council

On the BBCs comedy website[1] it states that the characters sit on the Parish Council not the PCC, also in the fist episode "Arrival", the council discuss planning applications, only a parish council would do this. is there any evidence to suggest that is is a PCC, if not I think it needs to be changed in the article --Bloke121 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it all to Parish Council. -- Roleplayer 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But a Parish Council would not discuss Church business, and the Vicar would not be an ex officio member. Both are the case with this council. My suspicion is that the writers are not clear themselves about this and are probably confused about the differences between the two types of body.--172.206.213.11 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, the above was me (Captdoc) for some reason Wikipedia does not seem to be allowing me to log-in--Captdoc 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Captdoc that the writers do not seem to understand the difference between a Parish Council (PC) and the Parochial Church Council (PCC). This is perhaps not too surprising given that most lay people refer to both as "parish council". Yet it is clear that the frequent meetings that appear in the series are meeting of the PCC, since the Vicar is a member ex-officio, and the minutes are taken by the council's "secretary", not "clerk". However, the topics discussed seem to cover both types of "council" remit, suggesting either factual confusion on the part of the series' script writers, or - less likely - a complete overlap between the two councils. Annadibath (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC) annadibath

I'm not sure how significant it is, anyway. It's referred to as a "Parish Council" consistently in the show, so IMHO this is how it should be referred to in any writeup. Referring to it as a PCC without any mention of it in the show seems dangerously close to original research. 69.171.176.224 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Theology

"But while certainly bawdy, her theology is quite orthodox, believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that the biblical miracles occurred."

Does a belief in Jesus as the Son of God really indicate an orthodox Christian faith? Whilst the point about biblical miracles may be relevant I'm tempted to remove this sentence. Thoughts? Farosdaughter 23:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this has been here for more than a week and there's been no objections so I'm going to be bold and change it. Thanks. Farosdaughter 11:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuity error

did anyone notice it with her name? i thought her name was Bodicia not her middle name with all the Mary Poppins stuff? 86.2.114.118

refence the showing at 1/1/07

Agreed. May I add that was a pointless and horrible final episode. What a crap fact in an already catastrophic finale 86.130.136.218 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey..c'mon...it wasn't that bad. It allowed for some sort of resolution in the series, whereas before it had been left hanging in the air - and who doesn't like a happy ending? Iwan Berry 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It was awful. Terrible ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.20.7 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it was a giant continuity error on the part of Curtis and Mayhew Archer, i agree. collywobble (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Joy Carroll

I've added a reference to Joy Carroll, the female vicar cited by Richard Curtis as his inspiration for the character of Geraldine. I've just watched this documentary on the BBC and she appeared several times. She's written a book about it, which I've cited. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The link for Joy Carroll goes to some US evengelical - Jim Willis - not to Joy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC) CB77305 This appears to be because Joy Carroll has, instead of her own biography, a re-direct to her husband Jim Willis's page Ja2013 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I have removed the redirect to her husbands page and given Joy Carroll her own page back. There s a link to Jim Willis in the text.Ja2013 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tense

I can see where it says it should be present tense. However, I cannot see where the discussion was. All I can see are two very small debates about it, and non consensus seems to have been reached. The way I see the programmes has no longer run, it is finished. To say, for example, "Crossroads is a British soap opera", just does not sound right. It is not a British soap opera, it is finished and therefore "was" is more applicable and logical. I think to say past tense suggests the programme has been deleted is really insulting people's intelligence. Its fairly obvious this means it no longer runs. I also think most other encyclopedias use past tense. --Berks105 16:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The show still is a "British [..]", the show was aired "between x-y", the show "stars x", the show "was shown on y". We even have a MoS guideline on it, every time a show ends this debate is had, I'd advise you to stop edit warring at the face of such irrefutable proof. You may attempt to get a consensus to write creative works in past tense, it's not, however, gona happen, pal. Matthew

How very patronising I find your attitude, "it's not, however, gona happen, pal.", what a very arrogant thing to say. All these guidelines do not seem to be backed up by an proper discussion, only a few very small ones. Even the one at The O.C. was a small discussion involving only a few people. One person said present tense is correct for American English. Well this is a British programme, so British English is used, and I believe that past tense is correct. And there is certainly no "irrefutable proof". --Berks105 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Present tense is correct /everywhere/, it's "common sense", you don't refer to something as non-existent unless it really *doesn't* exist, which in this case: VoD *does*, godspeed. Matthew

You do not get it.. One thing that would be past tense are the lost Doctor Who episodes, because those were lost by BBC re-recording over the masters.. Those would be 'was' because no-one knows where they are.. But this show DOES exist.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware they exist, you are missing my point. My point is that they are not been airing, and past tense is far more logical. To say "Eldorado is a ill-fated British soap opera" is particulary illogical. It sounds as if we are predicting that it is ill-fated. To say "Eldorado was an ill-fated British soap opera" sounds far more logical. I am deeply unhappy about the way the two of you have ganged up on me on this, both claiming you are right, despite no proper consensus only many guides. Who says these are right? --Berks105 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus?, sure.. I'm sure somebody just stuck that into the MoS.. --Matthew

But each time someone brings it up at discussion there is no consensus. Please show me the consensus that put that section into the MoS then. --Berks105 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:IS NOT WAS Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot actually believe you are now trying to back up your argument with a Wikiproject you have just created! This proves my point. I am deeply worried that you are now going to run through TV programmes changing the tense, citing you Wikiproject, with no actual consensus having been reached. Even the WP:TENSE seems mainly to apply to fictionals characters, it says nothing about the actual programme. I suggest a discussion, perhaps vote, is had immediatley to settle this. --Berks105 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Every time a discussion is had there's always the same consensus, it may apear to be none but generally because every time a debate is had the supporters of past tense are generally un-aware it's incorrect. As WP:TENSE states, "Darth Vader is a fictional character from Star Wars.", operative word: is, just like the VoD still exists. --Matthew

I am not talking about fictional characters, my argument is on TV programmes, and I don't see these covered by WP:TENSE. There is not consensus on discussions, a few people state their arguments for either side and no consensus seems to be gained. It is very arrogant to assume it is wrong. I believe that the present tense for a finished programme is wrong. --Berks105 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the way you are now both going through so many articles changing them citing a brand-new Wikiproject is disgraceful. I am actually surprised by your actions and apparent arrogance in this matter. --Berks105 17:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:TENSE is a manual of style guideline, it has the support of the community, if you dispute this then propose changing it. Matthew

I'm taking no view on who's right here, but I think it would be wise for everyone to cool it and stop editing every TV-related page in existence until some form of consensus has been reached. Farosdaughter 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We have consensus, there's the same consensus every time a show ends at every talk page, it's even in the MoS. Matthew

No we do not have consensus. We have a few very small discussion with no proper conclusion. Even when a neutral editor comes in you are still ignoring them. Please stop now and lets have a full discussion with many people and come to a proper conclusion once and for all. --Berks105 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What about saying "The Vicar of Dibley is a British sitcom that aired from [...] to [...]? And whether or not consensus is present (and it's entirely possible I'm missing it; please give me some talk page diffs), it verges on being pointy to create a Wikiproject simply to back up unilateral changes. Regards, Farosdaughter 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that new project was created to backup the tense fixes, the manual of style does that perfectly. Matthew

I agree with you thereIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, MatthewIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it is not much of a comprise. Most pages say "that aired from ... to ..." anyway. The actions of these two editors, who continue to change pages, is disgraceful. There seem unwillingly to have a proper discussion prefering just to quote WP:TENSE which seems to be not to be that applicable anyway. --Berks105 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had multiple discussions at multiple locations, the consensus has always remained the same, present is correct, consensus can change, but it doesn't happen over-night, and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Matthew

Ignoring the fact I don't believe a consensus has been arrived at; a discussion at the TV Wikiproject could produce a conclusion. It is certainly more preferable than changing hundreds of articles en-masse. --Berks105 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It already has been, here (2005), here (2006), here (2006) and here (2007). Then we also have a MoS guideline at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles stating present is correct. Recently discussed at The O.C., as well (Talk:The O.C.#Is not Was!), not to mention The X-Files (Talk:The X-Files#Was vs. Is), they're just the discussions I know of. Matthew

<reindent and ec> Matthew, if that's the case then there was really no need to create a separate Wikiproject as you could simply cite WP:TENSE to back up your changes. Again I stress that I have no specific view on this matter, but I would ask both of you to carefully check such rapid changes, as I have found a few which are now gramatically incorrect, or misleading. The easiest way to settle this dispute is if someone would produce diffs to the discussions which show such a consensus. Regards, Farosdaughter 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create it, I support the spirit of the project, however, thus joined. Matthew

And that they can't do, because as far as I can tell no consensus has been reached. I really think a proper discussion, perhaps vote (I know they are not normally encouraged), could settle this once and for all. If it does go the other way to my argument I will accept it, I will never agree with it, but I will accept it. --Berks105 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

m:Voting is evil, Wikipedia works on consensus. There's already established consensus. Matthew

Then please point to the diff where the consensus was agreed. If there is consensus you should have no problem doing this. --Berks105 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've provided examples above, your prerogative if you wish to search for the guideline discussion, however. Matthew

I'm sorry but if you can't provide the evidence of an actual discussion with a proper conensus afterwards about this topic, then how does any know there was one? It sounds to me like a few users are arrogntly assuming there are right, and are pretending there is a proper consensus. In reality there have been a few small discussions, and arguments either way; that appears to be it.--Berks105 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop doing this. it's pointless. There is a guideline, and guidelines are by definition always a result of concensus. It's not up to Matthew or Illyria05 to show YOU where that discussion took place. If you don't agree take this to WP:MoS and get it changed, but untill then WP:TENSE will stand. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiction is written about in present tense to differentiate it from real events. If you disagree with WP:TENSE, take the discussion there. This is pretty widely accepted in the English language, so you will have a hard time arguing it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Mrs. Croppley

Does anyone know why Letitia Cropley was killed off? {{81.155.216.190 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)}}

According to the Britain's Best Sitcom documentary, it was because the actress who played her asked for more money than the rest of the ensemble. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Popular myths include that Dawn French didn't like the actress who played Mrs Cropley and that the actress demanded more money than the other cast members (see above), but what I believe actually happened is that the actress's agent requested for her to be payed more, not the actress herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.150.185 (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Need a fan userbox

I am a fan of this lovable show. Is there any new series being planned? Of course Jesus was just a messenger of God. Anwar 15:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No there are no new series being planned at present - the intention was that the Comic Relief episode shown last month was the last ever episode. -- Roleplayer 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been the "official" line since the series conclusion was released. That said, Never Say Never. Rumors have been floating around for several months that a new series might be in the works, and Dawn French didn't deny the possibility. http://www.comedy.co.uk/news/story/00000395/dawn_french_vicar_of_dibley_return/ 69.171.176.224 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Filming the last episodes

The article says that the last two episodes were filmed in September 2006. They weren't - the studio recordings were on November 12th and 19th at Shepperton Studios (I went to the first of them). The location filming was done in the weeks before. There are photos on www.photoshot.com taken on location and dated 1st November.

So should the date of filming be given as October/November 2006?

Last episode

wikipage says the wedding was a Saving Private Ryan theme, but my recollection was that it was a Dr Who theme. Or did I just imagine that there were Daleks as brides maids? and Alice was dressed like one of the Doctors??? Or is my imagination funnier than the show? Wheelhouse (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC) 28 Jan 2009

No you didn't imagine it. The wedding video was shot in the style of Saving Private Ryan, with all the pyrotechnics going on. The rest of it just surfaced from Alice's warped and somewhat psychotic imagination. Sky83 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Father's cousin

Actually Alice was born to Horton's father's cousin, rather than his father.203.53.167.180 01:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops just noticed that was written there, um sorry about that.203.53.167.180 01:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Frank's date of birth

I have added Franks date of birth as I noticed there is a birthday for Geraldine, so I have added one for Frank. It is revealed i The episode "Merry Christmas", during his key note speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audrey Knight (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers in character bios

It seems to me that several of the character bios contain episode spoilers. Either a spoiler warning should be provided, or (preferably) the relevant sections should be re-written to eliminate the spoilers. In some cases, rewriting the bios could involve a good deal of effort, since nearly the entire bio seems to be cobbled together bits of spoilers from various episodes of the program. 69.171.176.224 (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All should be aware that this is an encyclopedia and there is no such thing as spoiler alerts in wikipedia. Things are reported as supported by references. Anyone who does not wish to trip over spoilers just should not consult wikipedia. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Right, I'm not to dispute the claims in this article, it's just that I find it quite odd that Trever Peacock was, quote, " banned from several episodes in the final series due to being found naked with alan titchmarsh, charlie dimmock and lenny henry whilst smothered in cocaine and vaseline." Hehe, classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzwded (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Vicar of Dibley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310000055/http://www.barb.co.uk/facts/since1981 to http://www.barb.co.uk/facts/since1981/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)