Talk:Up (film series)

Naming
I've moved this article from 7 Up (documentary) to Seven Up!, because this is the title given at IMDB. 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. (Note: That link will expire in a few days.) --LostLeviathan 08:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Change page to "Up series"?
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)
 * 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)

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 agree as well. --Jfruh (talk) 17:32, 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)


 * Fixed. BillyH 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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."

The following description surely can't be correct:

"Boyhood, a film that will follow a boy from the age of six through to eighteen in real time over twelve years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.106 (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Run on sentence
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." [Unsigned entry]

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.

(Having seen the film again since writing this, I fear that I misunderstood her. I hope she will reconsider.)


 * Happily, she did indeed reconsider. Kostaki mou (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kostaki mou 04:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching 28 up and they spell her name Suzi, not Suzy. I haven't looked at the other films to see the spelling, but which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.183.185 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the only film in which that spelling is used. Presumably, Suzy herself used that spelling at the time and reverted to "Suzy" afterwards.  (Similarly, Simon used "Symon" for one film and reverted to "Simon" afterwards.)  Kostaki mou 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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), now known as Kostaki mou (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * He is "Symon" in 7 Plus Seven, 42 Up and 56 Up; otherwise, "Simon." Kostaki mou (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous Links
The links for Peter Davies, Susan Davis and Charles Furneaux lead to different people of those names. I don't know how to fix them as they are apparently made the same way as the red nonfunctioning "links" that were no doubt intended for these also.

Kostaki mou 04:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Up series DVD.jpg
Image:The Up series DVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Flaws"
I have deleted the "Flaws" section -- I originally retitled it "Criticism" and added a POV tag, but upon reading it again, I realize that it is solely original research and opinion. The article should have a "Criticism" section, but the original section contained no quotes, citations, or references to outside material. I will try to find information about criticism of the series in the future -- if anyone would like to help, please do! Graymornings 06:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Graymornings. If you didn't already please check the edit history of the anon IP that is trying to enter this info. It is a single purpose account trying to enter one persons dislike of these films and/or Apted and they have been blocked once for violating the 3RR. It looks like they are trying to avoid that but, if they persist, they can be reported at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Thanks for you vigilence in keeping an eye on this page. MarnetteD | Talk 13:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I did check the history, and since it seemed to be an anonymous "rant," I decided it wouldn't be controversial to delete it. I do think the article needs a "Criticism" section -- I'm sure I've read criticism of the film somewhere. I'll do research and get back to it. Thanks! Graymornings 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: this user seems to be repeatedly trying to insert this highly POV section into the article. He or she has put the material back in fifteen or twenty times, with various editors inevitably removing it. If you see it again, please help by deleting it. Graymornings 05:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Class
"with the explicit assumption that each child's social class predetermines their future"

This also comes up in the "Message" section. I thought the whole "class predetermining" thing was the central hypothesis being tested, rather than one of the assumptions. Any chance a citation for that can be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.11.155 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit protection
This article seems to be a consistent target of vandalism. Could we talk about edit-protecting it? Graymornings 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Memorable?
The article says on Suzy "In one of the most memorable scenes in 7 plus seven, her Labrador catches and kills a rabbit in the background". Is it a fact that this is "one of the most memorable scenes" or is it a writer's opinion? Regardless, I think this bit of trivia contributes little to the article, suggest to remove it. Odedee (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote for keeping it. It's of interest.  I think you're being a trifle rigid, frankly.  Kostaki mou (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rigid? This is clearly an opinionated statement, and a bit peculiar at that. There are numerous memorable scenes in these moving films, but to point out the one which involves a dog, rather than humans, is ludicrous, at best. Odedee (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the text, eliminating the rabbit but keeping the fact Suzy's parents own an estate, which is more pertinent to the article. Odedee (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for keeping it too. It was a memorable scene, hands down. Please put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.56.60 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing of interest about the scene is her reaction and even that isn't as interesting as something like her saying she would vote conservative and then when asked why she says she doesn't know and isn't even interested in politics.--97.82.195.71 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Odedee's changes, this isn't a film review. Best to keep the information clear in its purpose, concise in its meaning and above all with as little opinion bias as possible.

This article is a mess
Michael Apted did not create the Up Series or direct the first one (Seven Up). Paul Almond created and directed Seven Up, Michael Apted was simply a researcher for Seven Up I have three references here, here and here. This article imply's that Apted created the series and directed every film in the Up Series. Can somebody please contact me here or on my talk page where we will discuss fixing this mess up.--Theoneintraining (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the "Creation" section of the article where it states that Paul Almond began the series just as you say. I don't know how much clearer it needs to be than that. MarnetteD | Talk 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs to be clearer in the opening paragraph I believe. What do you think?--Theoneintraining (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates in list of films
What in the world are the dates, following each title in the list of films, supposed to represent? My best guess is these are the dates each film premiered on British television, but I can't be sure; anyone think it just might be a bit helpful to tell the user what he's reading? Propaniac (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Surnames
Why are there only first names mentioned? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably because that's how they're referred to in the films -- there's no reason to include last names, that I can see. Propaniac (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apted template
Anyone notice the "Films directed by Michael Apted" template at the bottom of this article (and all Apted film articles) doesn't list any of the Up films? Just sayin'. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked into it; User:TheMovieBuff has repeatedly removed the Up series from the template, God only knows why, and the last time he did it at the end of August, it hadn't been reverted. I added it back, added the template to my watchlist, and advised the user to cut the crap. Propaniac (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles
Proposed rewording:

Charles

Charles Furneaux did not make it into Oxford as an undergraduate. At 21 he said he was glad to have avoided the "prep school-Marlborough-Oxbridge conveyor belt" by going to Durham University instead, later attending Oxford as a post-graduate student. Charles has worked in journalism in varying capacities over the years, including as a producer for the BBC, and in the making of documentary films, including Touching the Void. He chose not to appear in the series after 21 Up, other than the contribution of an occasional photograph.

During an on-stage interview at London's National Film Theatre in December 2005, Apted alleged that Charles had attempted to sue him when he refused to remove Charles's likeness from the archive sequences in 49 Up. Apted also commented on the irony that as a documentary maker himself, Charles was the only one who refused to continue.

Reference to Radio Times and Daily Telegraph articles.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-05-14/56-up-michael-apted-on-the-documentary-series-thats-spanned-five-decades

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9269805/Seven-Up-A-tale-of-two-Englands-that-shamefully-still-exist.html

By the time of 56 Up, all references to Charles had been removed, other than in fleeting glimpses of joint shots with Andrew and John.

Tomintoul (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That appears to be fair and supported by the reliable sources you've provided. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Suzy and Nick . . . friends due to their shared rural upbringing."
Is that why? What authority do you have for that statement? It seems to me that their "shared rural upbringing[s]" were quite different. Kostaki mou (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In 56 Up, Nick said he thought he and Suzy were on the show because of their rural upbringings. And Suzy said at the 21 Up reunion, she felt the most comfortable with Nick, and talked to him the most. user:kellyscomments

Lynn
I would consider rephrasing this: "At 56 Up she continues to believe her career as a librarian is of great value and it has helped define her life."It strikes me as if the article is saying that being a librarian isn't of great value. Also, by 56 Up, Lynn had lost her job.

Also, it appears she passed away. http://www.stsavioursschool.org.uk/library-opened-in-memory-of-lynn-johnson/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyscomments (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The death of the creator of the series IS 'relevant' to this article.
Paul Almond created this series; he died earlier this month (April 9th, 2015). Given that the death of any of the 14 subjects of the documentary would of course be an important item to note within this article (as has been done with Lynn Johnson), the death of a major figure (such as Almond or Apted) involved with the project is equally deserving of notation.

People who are fans of this series have a degree of investment in it, and want to know when those involved with it have passed away; this article, being THE collective summary on the "UP Series" on the whole, is the best point of reference for such information here at Wikipedia. The notion that a reader should have to "go (to) the article for the person" for each of the fourteen participants, or Almond or Apted, to learn that they have died instead of being able to glean that information via a short reference to such here is utterly absurd. The truth is that many, and likely most, people visiting this page will remain unknowing of the death of one involved with the series if such information isn't posted upon it. The absence of such pertinent information from this page defeats the "source of information" purpose of Wikipedia.

The death of Paul Almond IS 'relevant' to this article just as much as the death of any of the fourteen participants is; again, the man was the creator of the series. I feel this way, and at least one other person has indicated that they do, as well. I have re-inserted the short notation to Almond's death within the article, and would appreciate it remaining there until this issue has had ample time for discussion amongst multiple people who visit this page. If there is an overall concensus that the death of the creator of the series for some strange reason shouldn't be noted here, remove the notation then, but until then the insertion of such into the article should be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtypicalMale (talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First he didn't create the series - Granada Television did. He did direct the first - 30 minute long - segment. He had no involvement after 1964 so no his death is not relevant to this article. As to what "fans" want and the other things you mention remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia - see WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTDIARY and WP:RAWDATA among others for what WikiP is not. You can certainly post items like this on your facebook page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having said all that the brief and concise birth and death dates in parenthesis is acceptable. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Neil's Illness
Is it not a bit. . . unusual that no mention has been made of Neil's mental illness, which he freely discusses in the post-21 installments? Perhaps that is the intended meaning of the statement that he was "in an agitated state" during one interview, but that evasion does a great disservice to this resilient fellow and to those who suffer his condition in general. It would be a good idea for the article's original creator to update Neil's section thus -- I do not feel competent, despite having three persons in my life stricken down by a similar condition.

67.165.91.134 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

In 28 Up, Neil mentions that he has always suffered from "a nervous complaint," which is another way of referring to unspecified mental illness. In his appearance in 35 Up, he was looking very rough indeed, and his interview was especially agitated. In 63 Up, he mentions specifically that there is a stigma to mentioning mental illness, and he speaks somewhat about having bouts of depression. But the films themselves never get too deeply into his specific condition. In the section of this article, however, one could enter a note that Neil suffered from an unspecified mental illness, though the details of it are vague. As with much of this series, there are causal implications between the subjects' personas and their life conditions, and we get the feeling that there is some link between Neil being not entirely well mentally/emotionally and the fact that he is homeless. But we simply don't have enough evidence to make that connection conclusively.Bill Coffin (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page to Up (film series) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Up Series → Up (TV series) – The "series" in the title seems to be descriptive, therefore capitalisation is incorrect. However Up series is not in line with WP:NCTV, so would suggest Up (TV series), unless someone has a better idea. -- wooden superman  15:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 17:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: Is this a series of films or a TV series with an episode every 7 years? The lead calls it a a series of documentary films, the infobox used though is Infobox television with num_episodes filled out. The categories are also all over the place, with these as an example - Category:British film series and Category:British documentary television series. If the article is a series of films, then the disambiguation is "(film series)" per WP:NCFILM. If the article is a TV series, then the disambiguation is "(TV series)" per WP:NCTV. --Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As it was made for television, I would say it more closely falls under the "(TV series)" umbrella, especially as the later entries were aired weekly, although admittedly it is quite a unique case. What we must do is move it away from the capitalised "S" in series, as this is descriptive and does not form part of the series name.  -- wooden  superman  16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I am torn as to what to call this (mostly between Up (film series) or Seven Up (film series) - but this is most definitely not a (TV series). Per WP:NCTV, for made-for-TV films we follow WP:NCFILM, and these are most definitely described in sources as a series of made-for-television documentary films. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , how about Up (series)?  SITH   (talk)   16:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we avoid using just (series) because it is unclear. Does it mean TV series, radio series, film series, number series, sports series, etc.? -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about Up (documentary) Psalms79&#59;6-7 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Is there any support for Up (film series) ? -- Netoholic @ 21:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, out of the possible options, this indeed seems to be mostly a series of (television) films. Support that. --Gonnym (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

63 Up
There was quite an interesting interview with Bruce, Sue and Tony in the Radio Times to mark 63 Up. They seem quite happy with the way the show has turned out, despite the obvious intrusion involved. https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-06-06/63-up-seven-up-cast-members-where-are-they-now/

"You’ve recently seen the first film of the new three-part series – what did you think of it?

BRUCE It’s so heart-warming. It’s nice to see a life from the beginning, a progress through life.

TONY I was quite happy. I was looking with trepidation, a bit of nerves. I think everyone does. All you’re asking for is credibility. Seeing my grandchildren grow up in the same film really touched a nerve with me.

SUE It’s knowing your children have always got this. That record of your life and your children’s lives is always there and I’m really proud to be part of it. It was sad in places watching this new one, but in a nice way. We’re all feeling older and we have aches and pains and life has chucked things at us, but we all came across in a positive way…

And you’re all still glad you took part?

SUE We’re all terrified we’re going to make a fool of ourselves and say something really stupid we can’t take back. Because we don’t get to edit it or see it before it’s finished, so you have to think about what you’re saying.

TONY There’s trust there. The whole production team have always been there. I trust them with my life.

BRUCE You feel they will be positive. They won’t try to catch you out or trip you up. It’s not a political interview. It’s bringing you out, telling the story of your life so people can see their own lives reflected in that. We’ve all lost somebody, we’ve all been through grief."

And they confirm that they might not mind doing it again in seven years, but only if Michael Apted, already 77 (who they've known all their lives), is in charge.

"Would you do it without Michael at the helm?

BRUCE If they did it again without Michael or some of the others, it would be very, very different. So probably not.

TONY No, I wouldn’t, he’s been like a brother to me. I love him dearly. The Up series is Michael Apted.

SUE I doubt it very much. It would have to be a totally different kind of programme. The way it’s formatted now, that’s the trust with Michael and the crew."

It's a remarkable outcome for something that started as a one-off World in Action episode in 1964 -- especially as the next two episodes, Seven After Seven and 21, got resounding critical raspberries in the press, quite wrongly. (If one could find those misguided reviews in the British Library newspaper archive, they would now look quite funny, but I can't be bothered.) It was only with 28 Up in 1985, when the audience and the press reacted so warmly to Neil's story, that the thing really took off. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Age of participants
Question: In 1964 the participants in 7 up were 7 years of age. So, logically they are 62 in 2019. Then why naming the program 63 up. They are 62.

Adelphos (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't get my head around this either. Maybe they were 7 when they filmed it in 1963? --TrottieTrue (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 7 Up! was released on 5 May 1964, but it was shot in 1963, when its subjects were seven years old. It looks like subsequent editions of the film were shot and released in the same year to avoid continuing this confusion.Bill Coffin (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This article repeatedly violates Wikipedia guidelines and policies
Specifically, this article appears to have generated its content in defiance of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and WP:VERIFY. If the article were to be held to this pair of clear encyclopedic standards, most of its content would have to be removed. Please, WP editors, follow the guidelines and policies. This article will not improve until someone decides that quality and principles are worth fighting for. 2601:246:C700:9B0:6882:E037:AF97:A81C (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * here you go, knock yourself out —75.72.49.12 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is not a shortage of citations—this 2019 piece on 63 Up is one in a long line of pieces in the major British, U.S., and entertainment periodicals—it is the freedom that past editors had felt in presenting their own viewing experiences and perceptions (violating WP:OR), and doing so completely absent of published support (violating WP:VERIFY). That said, the NYT article is a fine addition (and it already appears at other articles related to the series), and it appears here, now, in the "Further reading" section. 2601:246:C700:9B0:49D5:B293:F76B:4632 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we really need a citation for the names of the subjects in the films? The liberal sprinkling of the citation needed tag seems beyond excessive. The first film tells you who they are, we don't need an academic paper or a newspaper article to verify who's in the films. It's like asking for a citation to verify that Dorothy is the main character in the Wizard of Oz. Ian m (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)