Talk:Bill Turnbull

Untitled
Are you sure bill went to eton? I went to eton and there is no way in gods earth turnbull is eton material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.141.111 (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I struggle to believe you could emerge from Eton without knowing that, as the name of a place, it should be capitalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.18.74 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Presenter position - He is the stand in presenter of BBC Breakfast, standing in for Charlie Stayt and appearing alongside Louise Minchin
The following is a bit left field as there is no reference to Mr Turnbull being a stand-in presenter on Breakfast. All evidence points to him being a main presenter; including relating articles on this site. Please feel free to change back if there has been a change in his status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinc1000 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/24ZNqpQ9CDKD2mGMxvT2lCh/the-breakfast-team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinc1000 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bill Turnbull. 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/20110313233219/http://bbcnewschannel.wetpaint.com:80/page/BBC+Breakfast to http://bbcnewschannel.wetpaint.com/page/BBC+Breakfast

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Turnbull. 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/20140605052545/http://bucks.ac.uk/content/newsroom/2009/bbcbreakfast to http://bucks.ac.uk/content/newsroom/2009/bbcbreakfast

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

English or British?
I can't find a bomb-proof source either way, and I might be suffering auditory hallucinations of a "very posh Scottish" accent, but I find it odd that he's described as English. Only Wikipedia mirrors and obvious c'n'p's of the text here seem to do so. Scottish father, Scottish uni, started his career in Scottish broadcasting. Wouldn't "British" be the safer and broader descriptor? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think in this case it makes more sense to refer to him as British rather than English for multiple reasons. He is primarily known for his role as a presenter on the BBC (a British broadcaster), he has both Scottish and English ancestry and he went to university in Wales and Scotland (two countries that are part of Britain). Helper201 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * He's British. The usual pattern on this site (see WP:UKNATIONALS) is to describe people born in the UK as British unless they have clearly stated that they identified with one or other of the four countries, have represented one or other country, or are clearly perceived as associated with one or other country.  None of those seem to apply in Turnbull's case, so I've amended the opening sentence.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So I added UK to their birth location in the infobox because it corresponds with their now agreed upon nationality of British. I have been asked to discuss this here because another editor seems to have a problem with this. Helper201 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That's because there is no consensus to add the term "UK" to infoboxes, in addition to the country name England (or Wales, Scotland, etc., in those cases). To many editors, it is absurd to use the term "England, UK" - as absurd as it would be to, for example, use the term "France, EU".   The nationality in the opening sentence is one issue - British, unless demonstrably English, Scottish, etc. - but the infobox situation is different.  We are not talking about nationality - we are talking about birthplace (and birthplace does not necessarily determine nationality, though that's a different issue).  The issue is not a matter of consistency - it's a matter, essentially, of not allowing the infobox to appear absurd by adding in an unnecessary term.   This is an issue quite separate from the "English" / "British" discussion - it should have a separate heading here, but I've outdented it for some clarity.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * And as I have stated there is no consensus not to or that this is wrong either. You are the one making a big issue out of this when you have no strong leg to stand on, as there is no consensus recommending against this, you simply don't like it because you fall on one side of the argument about wherreted to include the UK in birth locations or not. The issue of France and the EU is totally different and a strawman argument, the EU is not a country, the UK is. I placed this here because, as I have stated in this instance the two correspond, a British person is typically from the UK and someone from the UK is typically British. You are displaying WP:OWNBEHAVIOR because a minor and factually correct detail that breaks no rules is not to your liking. Helper201 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you denying that England is a country? My main concern was that you added "UK" without discussion, and kept re-adding it even after I pointed out to you that there was no discussion on this page, and no consensus globally, that it should be added into an infobox.  It's not a question of "breaking rules" - and certainly I am not the one claiming WP:OWN on this - it's a question of not adding unnecessary material to the infobox in a way which, to many editors, makes it appear ridiculous.  See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."   When I was five, I'm sure I gave my address as "England, UK, Earth, Solar System, Universe" - but I grew out of that.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not, are you denying that the UK is a country? There is no English Parliament and laws are typically made on a UK basis, not solely England. When referring to the land from the outside, the UK is also more typical and more widely known. You are clearly displaying WP:OWNBEHAVIOR behaviour because you kept reverting something minor that, as I keep saying, there is no consensus against and is factually correct (see action 1). It’s hardly a cumbersome addition adding two letters and many editors would not say it’s ridiculous, just because some editors don't like something is no justification for removal. Again, you are so obviously using a strawman argument. No one is proposing adding "Earth, Solar System, Universe" etc, so please don't pretend they are. People do also add "UK" to letters and parcels, especially if the post is international (and Wikipedia is an international platform). The UK is a country and under the parameters of birth and death place one of the things to include is country. There are those that agree with adding the UK and those that don't. This is a very minor addition that does not negatively detract from the infobox, it’s purely aesthetic and a matter of opinion of which there is no guidance either way. Helper201 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It may be "minor" in the overall scheme of things, but you are the one seeking to impose your position, changing established wording based on your own personal views, and reverting edits with which you disagree. That is contrary to how we should behave here.  You keep raising irrelevancies - this has nothing to do with "nationality", and it has nothing to do with addressing parcels.  It is to do with what is appropriate and necessary for an infobox.  It's not a question of "not detracting from" an infobox - it would be a better infobox without unnecessary clutter that, to some editors, appears just... silly.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't change any "established wording", I simply added the letters "UK", that's it. "Seeking to impose your position", the same could be said right back at you for constantly reverting this extremely minor addition every time. I restored my minor addition; you are the one reverting it. You brought up the issue of addresses originally. It’s your subjective view that it would be better your way, not a matter of fact by any means. We are clearly at an impasse. I recognise there are different views on this matter but try and enforce removal of such an extremely minor addition seems way out of hand and completely unnecessary. Helper201 (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding the letters "UK" was clearly and self-evidently changing the established wording. I haven't "constantly" reverted you - I did it twice, the last time being ten hours ago.  Whether or not you consider this matter "extremely minor", the question of whether "UK" needs to be included or added in an infobox like this has been discussed multiple times, with many participants - so, perhaps not that "minor".  I'm not "trying to enforce removal" of the letters - I'm simply trying to convince you that you have acted incorrectly, and that the infobox is now in a more unnecessarily cluttered state than it was before - which is a shame.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Chiming in not because I have an especially strong view either way, but just because I checked back after my initial comment -- many thanks for that change!
 * The "UK" looks inelegant as it (in my browser) creates an "orphan" with a poorly placed linebreak. But copyediting to suit typesetting isn't a great idea:  as Douglas Adams discovered, that way lies madness.  "Are you denying that England is a country?"  Well, British (and English, and UK!) cultural institution Pointless famously uses this definition:  "by country we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right".  As does the UN, international law, and yes, Wikipedia (e.g. ).  Sure England is a "constituent country" of the UK, but that's a whimsical practice, like the US calling its federal subjects "states", Germany its "countries" (Länder), and so on.  The US is especially guilty of this sort of appeal to special pleading:  "our states are like other people's entire countries, possibly even continents, because reasons!"  But even they (checking a random US bio with a not-so-scientific n=1 sample) seem to manage "Kentucky, U.S." (for example).  Surely a general principle of "(Pointless-sense) country of birth" should be applied.  But having looked over the multiple RfCs on this topic -- and the people changing it back and forth with un-summaried "minor" edits -- I think that perhaps 'generality', 'principles', and above all 'surety' are all in acute peril.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you really want to pursue this argument (again... given the many, many, many times this has all been discussed previously) you need to raise it on a more general page like, say, WT:MOS, rather than on the fairly obscure article talk page of a single individual. Thanks.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you'd seek to characterise as (really) wishing to pursue this. Much less "again", having never commented on it before.  This is the article I was interested in -- surely this is self-evident, given that I started this talk section on something else, before it drifted to this mildly related topic.  And you objected to another editor changing it without talk-page discussion.  Have we passed the Goldilocks zone and are now discussing it too much?  The comments above are offered as they apply to this article.  Respond to them or ignore as you prefer, but I'm pretty sure they're correctly placed.  Thanks.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two issues. Whether he should be described as "English", "Scottish", or "British" is an issue that is common to many articles and has been discussed many times on other pages. Whether the term "UK" should have been added to the infobox is a separate matter, but one which has also been discussed many times on other pages.  The most widespread opinion, taking all those more general discussions into account, is that he should be described as "British", and his birth place should be described as "England", not "England, UK".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd resolved the initial "nationality" issue (that I asked for input on at top-of-section) some time ago. Not quite clear why that's being re-added to the issue pile.  The country-of-birth issue you then asked for input on.  As I understand it, there is, unfortunately, no established convention whether to list these either with (or much less logically, without) the country (in the above sense) of birth, and I don't believe you can claim one based on an unclear "taking all those more general discussions into account" metric.  Hence I'm giving my input in this particular case (but in line with how I believe it should generally work), precisely as you asked.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)