Template talk:Downton Abbey family tree

Let's get this dealt with
Here is the section to deal with everything concerning the family tree and what should and should not be included. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See: Talk:Downton Abbey which was already started just before this thread and is located where the last discussion of the family tree took place.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:V
From the history of the template:
 * 11:20, 26 August 2018‎ PBS Added unreferenced section see WP:PROVEIT use the template use the template to add references to this section so references appear everywhere [the template appears in article space]
 * 06:11, 27 November 2018‎ Mark Miller This tag is not neeeded as a source for this tree is the primary source, which is the fictional, primary source material also used to source plot summaries which this is a part of.
 * 11:22, 27 June 2019‎ PBS This request for sources is a WP:CHALLENGE the WP:BURDEN rests with the person restoring the text (or in this case deleting the template). All leaves of the tree need an in-line citation to a reliable source.

@Mark Miller Like any other part of an article all information needs WP:V I would prefer not to delete all of the table, so I have used the template as a WP:CHALLENGE, so do not remove it until inline citations are provided and accurate enough (see WP:CITEHOW) so that readers can verify that the relationships in the tree are correct (see WP:BURDEN). If you look at other templates in Category:Fictional family tree templates you can see how it can be done.-- PBS (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just seeing this. I know how to add the reference citations, self contained on the template (thanks to you) and I believe there is a way to cite the original video production by it's episode and timeline (I'll have to check). With the addition of notes and any additionally published reference (there are so many published books now I think even the scripts are on Google books) I shouldn't have an issue referencing this template. I'll get to work on it. Hope I didn't sound like I was being resistant, I just thought of this as a plot explanation only when I originally created the template.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope the style I have adopted will be OK. I like it because it gives the reader both a short citation and explanation without going further but does include the full reference to click to.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"Viola Mary Talbot"???
I'm sorry, WHERE has this information been in??? Nothing of the sort has been confirmed, and even if it had, the film has Not. Yet. Been. Released. Removing it. Yoryla (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know seriously. With the film about to debut, the template might need to be protected.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Do not use this source
This source appears to draw a good deal of information for names from this family tree with errors or fan speculation. It is a circular source, a source that has taken information from our article or template and therefore may not be used to source claims of fact on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits that need to be made
Two edits needs to be made: 1) According to the film, Mary and Henry's daughter is called Caroline. 2) The family tree says that Rosamund's husband is called Sir Marmaduke Painswick. This is incorrect. In 2x03, Rosamund corrects Sir Richard Carlisle; he calls her "Lady Painswick" and she corrects him that she is "Lady Rosamund". If her husband had any title, including "Sir", she would be Lady Painswick, which she herself says she is not - he is merely "Mr Marmaduke Painswick". 14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)DowntonAbbeyFan (talk)
 * Reverted number 2 here - we have an actual source for Sir Marmaduke, and WP:OR speculation based on a throwaway line as a basis to reject it. So let's not. U-Mos (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)