Talk:As Time Goes By (TV series)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC: Sitcoms Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by BBC Sitcoms Task Force. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Hampshire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire 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.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance 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. Radio: UK Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This page is within the scope of the UK Radio taskforce. New members are always welcome! To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Romance Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: British Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force.

I didn't want to preemptively disambiguate ATGB (since the song isn't even mentioned on the Casablanca page let alone Wiki'd), but now I will since it's already been brought up. Mrwojo 17:38 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

I see your point, but I did what I did because I think if there's going to be an article entitled "As Time Goes By", it should mention the song because it a) is very famous and b) came first. --Bth

Do you think a full-blown disambiguation (As Time Goes By (song) and As Time Goes By (TV)) would be a good idea? I completely agree with you now that both should be mentioned since I didn't realize it's so famous. Mrwojo

I don't think it's necessary right now. But if someone who knows about it comes along and writes a whole load of interesting stuff about who wrote the song and stuff then maybe it should. Given that the TV series draws on the song, I think it's fair to have the two in the same article. --Bth

Given that there is also now a book of the same name (a sequel to Casablanca and an unrelated movie, perhaps it's getting nearer to time for a disambig? Four separate (if related) uses. Or perhaps we could just keep this page for the song (which is the primary), and spin the other three off to disambig'd pages, something like what was done with the various Mystic River pages? The only issue I can see with that is that the song article would be a stub. Lokicarbis 04:54, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I just searched for the song, assuming that was the primary use, and was quite alarmed to see a sitcom there instead (though it looks like a good one). Either the song or the disambiguation page should be at the main title. -67.170.93.61 10:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the sitcom is, in the UK at least, the primary use of the of the words. The song should definatley not be put at these words. --Berks105 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just disambiged Geoffrey Palmer, to Geoffrey Palmer_(actor), to distinguish him from Geoffrey Palmer, a prime minister of New Zealand. I thought I'd say it here, so everyone knows what's going on.Silverfish 16:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who sang the theme song version to As Time Goes By --Marcus2

I believe my ATGB DVDs say that rendition is sung by Joe Fagin. TheCustomOfLife 19:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edited ATGB DVD release. Just wanted to make it known that Series 7, 8, and 9 are not out on DVD in the U.S. or Canada. TheCustomOfLife 18:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think they actually taped on location any of the times the show "went out of the country". I know the Los Angeles episodes with Cy Liebermann were all done on soundstages, and I really doubt they left the BBC studios. Mike H 21:53, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

If "Lt Lionel Hardcastle was sent to the Korean War in 1954" he would have got there a bit late - I believe the fighting ceased in 1953.

217.94.207.224 16:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone actually say he was there in 1954? 1992-38=1954...but the stories aren't neccesarily taking place in 1992. Dhodges 23:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checking various websites there may have been some continuity errors in the series. At times they make it clear that Lionel was in Korea in 1953, but some other episodes seem to suggest 1954 --Dhodges 02:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 1954 isn't a mistake. American troops didn't leave the country after the actual fight ended, so perhaps UK troops remains for a time themselves. On 27 July 1953 an Armistice was finally signed at Panmunjom. But Korea remained a divided nation. In 1954 the 1st Commonwealth Division was reduced to brigade strength before finally being withdrawn in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.238.246 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

65.96.104.82 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Laurence Olivier seems very random in its current state. GWP asserts that it does have a point. I'm not quite sure what is meant... it needs to be clearer in the article, as at the moment it does look odd. The JPS 19:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for removing it. Pissant 15:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded - unless Laurence Olivier is continually referenced throughout the series, or is a major plot point (and I don't remember him being so), then this single entry is random and meaningless.

Fourthed — Grstain 17:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the very fact that he was mentioned is an indicator of his cultural significance and is therefore relevant in the context. GWP 12:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do not recall his being mentioned off hand. I recall Cilla Black, Alan Partridge, Zebedee (Magic Roundabout), Celia Johnson, Trevor Howard, Johnny Ray, Bill Haley, Johnny Cash, Winnie-the-Pooh being mentioned, to name just a handful. Are they to be added to this section too? No, my opinion is that Olivier's cultural significance is germane to his article, and not to this one. I revote that it be removed. — Grstain 12:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Apparently, Laurence Olivier is mentioned in the 2005 "reunion special". Be that as it may, I still revote that this section be removed. — Grstain 13:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it again, as per consensus (4 vs 1). The JPS 13:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also tried to get some consensus/discussion going at WikiProject_Films, since GWP has added similar sections to many articles. You might like to contribute? The JPS 09:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or was the premise for this series mostly based on Nevil Shute's novel 'A Town Like Alice.' Even the character's names are similar. Can someone work a mention of this in? -- Hijamiefans

...Well a couple of simularities. I'd hesitate to say anything without some evidence from people associated with the show. -Dhodges 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that one is based on the other solely due to the use of "comedy of errors" tropes to keep two characters apart for decades is a pretty thin argument; you'd have to then say that half of Western literature is related as well. The book focuses on the effects of war and brutality toward women in captivity, and about two people intentionally trying to find each other afterwards and falling in love. The show doesn't really say anything about war at all (it's a mcguffin in the backstory, not part of the show itself) and is about two people who were lovers who run into each other accidentally decades later. As for the character's names being similar, they really aren't. The heroine of the book is Jean Paget, and both "Jean" and "Paget" are very common names. "Pargetter" is not a common name, and has a different etymology than "Paget". I'm not aware of any other character names from the show or book that are in any way similar. So, no, an argument that the show is based on the book (or one of the two film adaptations of it) won't stand up to scrutiny. Were the producers going for the same sort of feel of two people separated by war who find each other again? Probably. But that's not the same thing as saying "the premise for this series mostly based on Nevil Shute's novel." The feelings evoked are the same (the same thing can be said about dozens of films and shows that you wouldn't bother trying to link to this book), the premise is entirely different. Canonblack 12:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but most of the "Preconceptions and stereotypes" seems rather opinionated, and seems to be somebody's interpretation. Do any of the external links verify this section's content? Bob talk 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that this part of the article is opinion. The external links shed no light on these claims. Perhaps some pruning is in order? — Grstain | Talk 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I tend to think the whole section should be deleted. --Berks105 15:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and done it. — Grstain | Talk 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not quite sure I agree with you here - having a separate cast list works if you have character descriptions, but otherwise it makes the article less clear - it's much better to have the plot show who is playing particular characters in the context of the description, rather than as a redundant separate section - if people want to find that out, they can just look at IMDb. As I said, Only Fools and Horses, which is one of the best British sitcom pages on here, has the cast names integrated in the text, as do all of the other TV featured articles and all the GA sitcoms pages. Bob talk 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it makes the article less clear. Straight away the reader is told who plays who, and then the plot is not cluttered by brackets saying who played who. In addition, having the two merged you deleted the information on what series the characters appeared, the fact the Harry was played by a second actor in 2005 and middle/maiden name info of some characters. Putting in this information would clutter the Plot section even more. I feel that when someone is reading the Plot they don't want to know who played who they just want to know what the programme was about. --Berks105 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but those generally work only when there's some character descriptions. That said, if you're planning to write some in the future, then that's excellent. Bob talk 13:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in, I prefer the article with the cast list section, rather than having the actors' names introduced in brackets in the plot section. Thanks. — Grstain | Talk 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the coding for which episodes actors appear in. For example, Rocky is listed as: "14 Episodes from Series Two: Season 2 Episode 3, E3S2, E3S10 ..." etc. What is E3S2? If it means "episode 3 series 2" then why is it listed the other way around - season, then episode - in the text?

Frankly, I think those lists border on pointless fancruft; worese, they are confusing, because I read them to imply that in some shows a different actor played the character - what it really means is that the character didn't appear in certain episodes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, they're horrible, aren't they? (as is most of the article, if I'm honest) Bob talk 16:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lionell and Jean were the ones who got married not Jean and Alistair I think24.225.108.183 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite see where you're referring to in the article - is there a mistake somewhere? If you do see it, please feel free to correct it. Bob talk 10:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the episodes I think Pargetter is Jean's first marriage name with Hanson being Judi's second husbands name (she was twice divorced before the series started) as when Judi orders the chair for Lional and later when she and Sandy run the agency she uses Pargetter for her last name, I don't see her switching to her mothers maiden name but it would make sense for her to drop a divorced husbands name, and this can take time legally, which would mean David and Penny were Pargetters and Hanson was Judi's second husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.142.102 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source, please. What you "think" is not proof. The fact is that the series itself does not make it clear where these surnames came from. "Hanson" could be Judy's married name (the character's name is spelled in the credits as "Judy", not "Judi") or her maiden name. There is no indication in the series that Jean ever went by that name, and her late husband is only ever referred to as "David". If someone has a source that says otherwise, present it. If it is specified in dialog in the show itself and I missed it, we need episode name and number and approximate location (minutes and seconds) of the statement. Canonblack (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the ages of Lionel Hardcastle (Geoffrey Palmer) [DOB 190627] and Frank Middlemass, who plays Lionel's father Rocky, whose DOB, according to the As Time Goes By article, is 280519.
Is it worth noting that Lionel's father was eight years old when he had a son?!
Or is it artistic licence?

On another note, I see that the article mentions 'Season', particularly earlier-on. Surely, if it is a British programme, it should state 'Series'. 'Season' is an Americanism. Indeed, 'Series' is used later-on in the article.

RASAM (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Middlemass is not Lionel's father. Geoffrey Palmer is not Lionel. The two men are actors - Frank Middlemass was not a father at the age of eight! You can mention that the two actors are only eight years apart in age, but it's trivia, not anything of relevance to the plot. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And age differences like that are not uncommon. You probably can find dozens of articles online about the phenomenon. For example, Sean Connery is only 12 years older than Harrison Ford, yet they played father and son. At any rate, that's not what artistic license means. Canonblack (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on As Time Goes By (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727162433/http://www.will.uiuc.edu/tv/britcoms/bbcfiles/insider/insiderjune04.doc to http://www.will.uiuc.edu/tv/britcoms/bbcfiles/insider/insiderjune04.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on As Time Goes By (TV series). 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/20110525202623/http://epguides.com/AsTimeGoesBy/radio.shtml to http://epguides.com/AsTimeGoesBy/radio.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives Jean's surname before marrying Lionel as Pargetter. Other than this show, the only place I've encountered the name is as the real name of the writer Ellis Peters, and she spelled it Pargeter. Is there a reliable source for the spelling Pargetter? --69.159.8.46 (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Lol was one of 7 brothers; in other words, he has 6 brothers, not 7. Yes? No? Nellisks (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw the show, and can confirm that there are 7 brothers of which Lol is one. I shall update the article. Nellisks (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this is an inappropriate place to raise this question, I'm still getting my feet here. At the beginning of the article "Judy Dench" (as a templated name) is listed as one of the starring players. Given that in life now she is properly titled Dame Judy Dench, should this be reflected in her acting credit on the page? MultiScrivner (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]