Talk:Tim Wonnacott

Anon's mistake
I hate howe anon's are a loud to edit pages like this. VampireProject23 —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
I reverted this article to the 8 october 2010 version, removing what I believe to be vandalism. This was the passage in the article before the revert:

"In July 2003, Wonnacott replaced David Dickinson as the daytime host of the popular BBC1 television programme, Bargain Hunt after proving sucessful in a duel to the death, though victorious in the duel, he showed mercy and spared his oppenants life. The original contract was for 30 shows, but this has been extended to over 350 shows in light of his appeal to viewers. He is currently awaiting trial for the severe maiming of Dickinson."

I think the vandalism is fairly obvious..

Cheers, Fionaalison (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate
The birth date on this article is incorrect. Mr Wonnacott was born in 1951, not 1953 (source BMD indexes): Timothy Wonnacott Year of Registration 	1951 Quarter of Registration Jan-Feb-Mar Registration District 	Barnstaple Registration County 	Devon Mother's maiden name Volume Number 	7A Volume Page 	271 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.124.129 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite right! I was just about to make a similar comment. Actually, as Mr Wonnacott's birth was registered in the march quarter of 1951, it is possible that he was born in 1950. I will remove the comment about Tony Blair sharing the same birthday as it is plainly incorrect and adjust the birthdate to '1951'. It will then be for someone with better information than I have to put the actual date. Johnpretty010 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is complete and utter rubbish! People shouldn't be rooting through government records, carrying out original research and drawing their own conclusions to prove or disprove what a celebrity says about their private lives. Not all birth registrations were recorded by the GRO, for example. WP:PRIMARY clearly says that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" Sionk (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify that the |the reference used to support the 1953 date of both is not Wonnacott's personal homepage. It is a page created by wonnacott.org, a website that "contains genealogy details and resources for Wonnacott families throughout the world." So the referenced page is a page about him, not by him.  According to the page, however, the website has Tim Wonnacott's permission to publish the information. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! Thanks for putting me straight and correcting the citation. I should've read the green writing more carefully. If Wonnacott has given permission to publish the info, that should be OK for a BLP, I'm sure. Sionk (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If anyone can find a better reference, that would be ideal, but I think, in the circumstances, it's OK to assume that this one is sanctioned by Wonnacott, given that it's been there since 2004. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief! Sorry but this is most certainly not "complete and utter rubbish". I will try this again. The indexes of the of civil registration of births, marriages and deaths in England and Wales have always been public and readily available records. Mr Wonnacott's birth was registered in 1951. That is a certainty. Yes, his birth was registered Sionk. I object to the suggestion that people are "rooting through government records" as though they are going through classified records. The indexes are public records and Mr Wonnacott's birth was registered in 1951. I don't know what more I can say. I will change it back to 1951 and leave it at that. If you are silly enough about this to change it back to the incorrect date then (perhaps like Mr Wonnacott himself) I will ignore the error. It's really not that important - and certainly not important enough for a reaction like Sionk's! This date also appears in the following (freely and publicly available!) family tree at the following webpage: http://www.wonnacott.org/nicholas.htm which was constructed by a member of the Wonnacott family and placed online. JohnP2o2o (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify this. I am really quite offended my Sionk's comments above. So I will make the following observations. Mr Wonnacott is a celebrity who regularly appears on British television. My reason (and I think it is safe to assume that this is the same for 90% people) for coming to this Wikipedia webpage was to find out more about Mr Wonnacott. Yes, I admit it, I was being nosey! Now, I don't know why Sionk came to the page, but clearly the implication is that he or she would not have wanted to know anything personal about Mr Wonnacott.

A biography is a "secondary" record written by an individual who is - well, frankly prying into the private life of a person in the public eye. Bookshops and libraries are full of such material. Some of it accurate, and some of it not. Some is "authorised" and some not. A person writing an unauthorised biography is not breaking any laws so far as I am aware in any event.

The issue of Mr Wonnacott's birthdate is not a particularly serious one and not one which should be the subject of heated debate. I now rather regret pressing those couple of buttons on my PC to check that the date that was being quoted was right! (Which I think it is quite reasonable for Wikipedia contributors to do!) Of course, to get the actual date would require a birth certificate, but I am not that nosey! Nevertheless, Mr Wonnacott's birth was registered in 1951, so he cannot have been born in 1953. Now please, leave me alone! If you wish to reply to my comments please do so in a less threatening manner! JohnP2o2o (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In actual fact, a Timothy Wonnacott's birth was registered in Barnstaple district in the March qtr of 1951. You have drawn the conclusion that Wonnacott is lying about his age and decided to publish that conclusion on Wikipedia. That is 'original research', which is strictly not allowed in biographies of living people unless it is backed up by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. The BBC, his employer, are happy to believe he was born in 1953. It's a bit rich to say "leave me alone" when you are quite happy to dispute someone's birth date on the world's 5th most popular internet site. The WP:BLP guidelines exist to protect minor celebrities' from Wikipedia editors acting like tabloid journalists. Sionk (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's so clear. The Timothy Wonnacott, son of auctioneer Major Raymond Wonnacott and Pamela R Wonnacott nee Ford, registered in Barnstable in 1951, is not the Timothy Wonnacott named in the article. Brakn (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know from what source did www.wonnacott.org discover a Tim Wonnacott born in 1953? Brakn (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably submitted to the website owner, like much of the other information on the website. The citation is used here to show that a DOB is openly published in the public arena, apparently with Wonnacott's consent. Sionk (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just curious...does this mean that anyone can put up a webpage with wrong information and then this webpage, because it is openly published, can be used as a reference? I'm not bothered if someone claims to be a different age than they actually are but it shouldn't be allowed on wiki - being born two years after you were registered is pretty much a miracle. Brakn (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No Sionk, it is not independent reference that he was 50 in 2003; it's an independent reference that he was in his 50s. Surely wiki should not put up info that is wrong? If you ask Wonnacott.org what is their ref they will tell you it's the Central Records Office births 1951 even though on their website they've put that he was born in 1953. Two wrongs etc... Brakn (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, he says he's 50 in the article. So please stop accusing minor celebrities of lying, on Wikipedia, based on your WP:OR. Instead find reliable published sources to back up your repeated allegations. Sionk (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. What about this one http://wonnacott.org/genpdf/nicholas_htm.pdf (Sionk I'm not trying to wind you up! :-) )  Brakn (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It makes the same assumptions as you, based on the same primary source. At least the http://www.wonnacott.org/TVTim.htm page claims to be published with the agreement of the subject, so it's the best we've got at the moment. Sionk (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's from the same site; two other references are taken from it. If they are assumption and the whole of the wonnacott.org site is based on assumption surely it would be better not to use it all. Also,the BBC ref is so vague. If you think that he wasn't born in 1951 fair enough but according to the article the Tim Wonnacott born in 1951 to Raymond Wonnacott and Pamela R Ford is not is not the same person as the Tim Wonnacott born in 1953 to Raymond Wonnacott and Pamela R Ford. If we can't get it right there is no need to get it wrong. Brakn (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious. If you persist in adding unsourced information about living people wo Wikpedia you'll end up getting blocked. The GRO indexes don't give parents names, for example. There is no 'article' that names Wonnacott's parents. If Wonnacott is born in May his birth wouldn't be registered in March. Sionk (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Tedious? Parents names? Check the GRO Marriages. Check the reference http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Acclaimed-property-auctioneer-dies-88/story-11847068-detail/story.html Believe he was born in May? You're right Tim this tedious. Scroll above and read this page. Even I'm bored now but you must know this will come up again and again because it's not true. (not that the truth matters. ha ha) Brakn (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Last night Tim said on the BBC "and for an old geezer like me who comes along in his 64th year" - must be mistaken then. ;-) Brakn (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it's now clear the 1953 date is completely wrong by Mr. Wonnacott's own statement, and may well have originated from Wikipedia itself, I have corrected it to 1951. His father Raymond married Pamela Ford in 1946, and Ford is the maiden name given on the 1951 birth, this ties in with the tree here. Vladeraz (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tap Dancing???
Could whoever wrote the passage referring to Tim's tap dancing prowess please provide a reference? I can find no mention of a Brixham School of Performing Arts on Google (other than this article and other sources deriving from it), and I rather doubt that a fairly small town in Devon would have had such an institution around 1970. Indeed, I suspect that schools of 'performing arts' are a comparatively recent American import to the UK, inspired by films like 'Fame'. I smell vandalism.86.135.4.171 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed it, if someone comes up with a source it can be added back. GB fan 17:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

He has just stated on Strictly Come Dancing (19 Oct 2014) that he is in his 64th year. Can't have been born in 1953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.120.45 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Was Tim not telling the truth? Born 1953?
Wiki says you're wrong Tim!

“It’s a great treat to be on a programme like Strictly. For an old geezer like me – in his 64th year, slightly portly and thinking he’s a bit over the hill – it has taken me to a very special place.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s104/strictly-come-dancing/news/a604474/strictly-come-dancing-2014-tim-wonnacott-eliminated.html#~pfTMyh5IlVpUuZ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/strictly-come-dancing/11170252/Strictly-Come-Dancing-Results-Week-Four-Tim-Wonnacott.html http://www.hellomagazine.com/film/2014101921494/tim-wonnacott-leaves-strictly-come-dancing/ http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Bargain-Hunt-s-Tim-Wonnacott-Barnstaple/story-23270446-detail/story.html End of. Hate it when things are wrong. ;-) Brakn (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have completely removed mention of birthdate/year. There are no reliable sources in the article for any birthdate/year and they should not be readded without one.  -- GB fan 19:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In the UK directors of companies are listed at Companies House and can be viewed online at www.companieshouse.gov.uk by any person. On this website the officers of Tim Wonnacott and Associates Limited include Timothy Wonnacott, whose date of birth is given as March 1951. As it is an offence to give false information, this would appear to confirm the date deduced from the official birth records. 82.21.92.11 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Moriarty


 * If in October 2014 he was 63, then it's fair to say he was born circa 1951. He has freely said so. However, digging around in birth and marriage registration indexes is still WP:OR and should be avoided, regardless of whether people consider themselves professional genealogists or not. Sionk (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We finally seem to agree that Mr Wonnacott was born in 1951, but where did the date of 6 May come from? I can see no source given. In the public records of Companies House it clearly states March 1951 (see above). The birth indexes, though you may regard them as original research, give the registration of his birth as March Quarter of 1951 - that means it was registered in January, February or March of that year. Without any further evidence should we limit his birth date to either 1951 or March 1951? 82.21.92.11 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Moriarty


 * "it's not my birthday" Timothy Wonnacott resigned, 2003 80.234.128.185 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)