Talk:Antiques Roadshow

International versions
I'm going to add templates to some of the entries. Why? Because we aren't interested in listing merely shows with similar content - we're listing international versions of Antiques Roadshow specifically as opposed to "shows generally about appraising old stuff". In other words, unless a show can be shown to be in some relation to the subject of this article, it should get off the page. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Logically: good point. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

International versions (again)
I added a template to the entire "International versions" section.

Do note: I'm not calling for sources that merely verify the existence of each show. I'm specifically calling for sources that verify the link to the subject of this article: BBC's Antiques Roadshow.

In other words, let's avoid turning the section into a linkfarm for any old show where people evaluate their stuff. Inclusion in the section means we claim "NN is an international version of AR". I now call for sources that verify this connection. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Understood. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Antiques experts and appraisers -> Programme experts for 2019
Just creating this talk section for discussing such a major change. CapnZapp (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Referring to the 17:34, 11 April 2019 edit by AR Viewer, that is. I myself tagged the section with the following edit summary: Antiques experts and appraisers: is this list trying to be complete (e.g. "all experts during 2000-2018"), or is it trying to denote notability ("Among the best known..."). It can't do both - in that case the list should attempt completeness, and text should be used to introduce the "main" ones.
 * In other words, thank you User:AR Viewer. Your edit satisfies the tag (=now the list has a clear criteria) and I would argue it can be removed. Question remains: should we also add a historic overview "every appraiser on the show"? Such a list might have encyclopedic value even if we can't claim completeness. incomplete list or dynamic list templates exist for a reason. What say you? CapnZapp (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Programme experts for 2019
I was intrigued why someone like Mould wasn't included - maybe he quit or was let go or something. So I googled "philip mould site:bbc.co.uk" and sure enough, he's still there - there is an AR presentation page for him as well:

It's just not linked to from that "meet the team" page.

He IS however, that page tells me, on a page called "the experts", a very similar-looking index which stretches to two pages (Mould is on page 2):

Now the question remains: which of these sources can be used to establish they're on the team right now which is what we are claiming with our current section title? None of them mention a year or season, as far as I can tell.

And forestalling one possible suggestion: no, we can't just drop the "for 2019" bit, because then we're right back into "here's a random group of experts with no good selection criteria" territory - the only reason some are in and others aren't is because BBC selected them, or just goofed up. Which I don't think makes for good encyclopedic value.

Remember, we should either strive for completeness "every face that has appeared even once during forty years" or we need to tell our readers what our inclusion criteria is ("Some guys except maybe not those BBC forgot about" wouldn't be my top choice :-)

CapnZapp (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Full marks for your message over here, but I mailed them on Monday, as you probably know, and although they did not reply (yet), a bit of a change happened on the "team" page, while the "profile" page is lost when they decided to have "all of them" (NOT!) on one page (just in order to avoid taking more space I guess?), resulting in the complete "Pictures and Prints" as well as "Silver" sections being lost, since only the new faces were deleted in the main list and just a few painting experts readmitted apparently, so the amount of experts wasn't altered in any way at all! Extremely sexy (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What conclusions if any do you draw from this? CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well: that they themselves don't mind about this at all, regrettably so, since almost nothing has been changed on this particular page (so far at least that is)! Extremely sexy (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bart Versieck's latest edit alerted me to the fact that BBC has apparently updated their page, now including everyone. Great - now my remaining query is if we can find a permanent archive of the link, before BBC changes the page again! CapnZapp (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So my "complaining" to them (whomever it may have been) did help in the end, but regrettably it took them several weeks anyway to get someone to fix this (although two of the miscellaneous experts are still "in limbo"), and it's also logical to put all those specialist experts separate from the general ones, as they have now done too apparently! Extremely sexy (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Crystal centerpiece
My parents have passed and I have inherited a number of pieces to include. Crystal pedestal bowl w hanging crystals and wondering if this has any value 2600:1702:32C0:6DF0:404F:67DC:5828:A6E3 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Elvis Frontenac Blanc D'Oro White Wine with the Colnel's Poem and seal in tact
What is a bottle like this circa 1978 worth 2600:6C5E:597F:CBFF:76:C5F7:5128:F5E0 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)