Talk:Up series
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Naming
I've moved this article from 7 Up (documentary) to Seven Up!, because this is the title given at IMDB. [1] All sources seem to indicate that the title is spelled "Seven Up" with an optional exclamation point, the next is called 7 Plus Seven, and the rest consistently use numerals (21 Up, 28 Up, etc.) use numerals. For example, this is how the titles are listed in a recent review of the DVD set at The Onion AV. [2] (Note: That link will expire in a few days.) --LostLeviathan 08:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Change page to "Up series"?
- what about changing this page to Up Series? or is 7 up like an official name or somehting? Spencerk 04:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The page title is misleading. The page is really about the series of seven films, not just the first one. Anybody else reading this please weigh in with your opinion. Drwhapcaplet 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me the title is misleading, the article is about seven films, not one... Anybody else agree?
- I vote to change it. Clarityfiend 01:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --PurplePenguin 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I can understand the arguments each of you have made for changing the name of this page and I agree with them in general. The only thing I would like to say for leaving it as it is is that the way I found it was by typing '7 Up' in the search box. I don't know whether I would have thought to look for it as 'Up Series'. But that is just one persons experience.
-
-
-
- If and when one any of you decide to make the move PLEASE, PLEASE be thorough and go and fix all the links to this page that already exist. Just leaving a bunch of redirects, although you can do it that way, is sloppy. The few times that I have moved a page I usually open a second window and have the page showing me all the pages that are linked to an article in the first and then perform all of the edit changes that I have to do in the second. Thanks to all who work on keeping this a good article and happy editing too. MarnetteD | Talk 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
It seems there is a consensus that the article should be moved to Up Series. I will do this myself on December 3, 2006 unless anyone objects before then. Tommy11111 04:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have performed the move. All further discussion should take place at the talk page for Up Series. Tommy11111 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you did not follow wikipedia's process for moving a page you cut and pasted it which loses the edit history and we now have a mess. I will let the people who know how to do this know and hopefully they will be able to fox your mistake. MarnetteD | Talk 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear
The following sentence from the article sounds very confusing:
"Some therapists show their clients the series to explain that a given person's reaction to the various interviews may have as much to say about the subject, in their interpretation of what they think that the participants are saying, as it does about the people taking part in the film."
[edit] On the Media interview
I note that On the Media just did an interviewon Apted. Maybe they will have the transcript ready in about a month. -- PinkCake 06:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Errors/criticisms
I am not a regular contributer so forgive me if I'm not going about this quite the right way. There are a number of factual errors in your article. The three 'upper class twits' did not mention what careers they wanted to pursue at 7 and certainly did not mention specific firms or banks. The three working class girls did not mention drugery nor did they even imply it at 7 or 14 (at 21 they seemed somewhat defensive admittedly). Neil's life did not at all seem layed out for him at seven (He wanted to be an astronaut or a coach driver and did not think he needed to go to university because he didn't want to be a teacher). It is also false that none of the 'upperclass twits' appeared in the program after 28 up. in 35 up 2 out of the 3 appeared. Also the tone of the article is rather unprofessional. Calling 3 of the kids upperclass twits might be ok but then saying it was unsuprising they did not appear is both unfair and incorrect. All three seem to me to be very reasonable and unstuck up adults from what we see in the movies.
- You could not be more correct I have done a major edit on this page and I hope you come back across it some day and that you will either approve of it, OR make other edits to make this page even better.MarnetteD | Talk 30 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)
Just in case my last edit summary causes confusion...I meant 'this year', not 'last year'. Slip of the hand. BillyH 11:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The following is such a bad run-on sentence that I do not understand it. Could someone who does understand it please reword it? "Some therapists show their clients the series to explain that a given person's reaction to the various interviews may have as much to say about the subject, in their interpretation of what they think that the participants are saying, as it does about the people taking part in the film."
[edit] Suzy
As I understand her, Suzy does leave open the possibility that she may feel differently in seven years and thus her future participation should not be regarded as absolutely out of the question.
[edit] Simon
He has evidently reverted to that spelling of his name. His mother died of cancer some years ago (certainly before 42 Up).
38.117.238.82 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)