User talk:Lo2u/Archive 2

Starting rate of UK income tax
Hi,

About renaming the 10p tax rate article, I think the name 'Starting rate of UK income tax' is misleading, because there is always a starting rate, this article is rather about the level it was at from 1999-2008, namely 10% (or 10p in the pound).

To that extent, the old name was accurate and the new name is not.

Cheers, Pstuart84 Talk 18:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi PStuart, "starting rate" isn't a term I invented; it's the correct name for the 10% tax band. The 22% band is the "basic rate" and the 40% band is the "higher rate". The untaxed portion is called the personal allowance. See here . If these terms didn't exist I'd agree with you but that is the name we must use to be accurate. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Oxbridge
You have recently renamed the article about the "Oxbridge and Dublin" MA to refer instead to "Oxbridge, Cambridge and Dublin." Isn't the insertion redundant? NRPanikker (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Maybe I was tired. Anyway thanks a lot for pointing it out. If no one's done so already I'll restore the proper title. I think I misread it as Oxford and Dublin. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom
I'm seeking ways to make the police use of firearms in the United kingdom article look somewhat more objective, any suggestions? I ask because you made some valid points on the talkpage, and from my reading of it(the article), seems to be a defense of the policy; highlighting shootings by the police while downplaying danger to them;only giving fatal shootings stats etc. I know where the controversial shootings list came from, Im in the process of going through the rest of the history. I'm thinking that some statistics of the ratio of armed cops to unarmed cops that were both shot at and injured/killed, the success rate of unarmed officers in stopping violent crimes/apprehending suspects compared to armed officers, response time of armed officers to violent crime calls vs. general response, might help the article out. The Home Office website might help with some of these stats, maybe you could suggest other places to look. User 070 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi 070, welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with you that the article still presents a rather one-sided view. The situation is much better than previously, when the article Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom was devoted entirely to controversial shootings. My thoughts are as follows: at the moment I think the list of controversial shootings gives rather too much prominence to some long-forgotten incidents and takes up an unduly large portion of the article. It may be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. One solution might be to shorten the section to a single paragraph that mentions extremely well-known cases like the de Menezes shooting, as well as important general information. The section ends with this conclusion: "According to an October 2005 article in The Independent, in the preceding 12 years, 30 people had been shot dead by police, and no officers had been convicted in connection with any of them. [34] However, in the absence of any criminal proceedings against most of these officers following independent investigation, and the acquittal of the rest by juries, this supports the premise that the use of firearms by British police is proportionate to the threat involved." I can make no sense of this, either grammatically, logically or semantically and I suspect at the very least its a case of original research. Finally, I don't think the article should talk about an "apparent shoot to kill" policy because it's not clear that such a policy exists but it might justifiably talk about an "alleged shoot to kill policy".
 * I'm not sure I'm well placed to point to new information but I wish you luch with your efforts. Do be careful not to appear to carry out original research: you should report the statistics but avoid drawing your own conclusions from them. Let me know if I can help. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of Argentina Typo
The map of Argentina is missing the # for the province of Santa Fe, looks like the # 2 label is listed twice on the map. I believe the # 2 label directly to the right of #22 should be relabeled to #21 to reflect Santa Fe.ChicagoRob78 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. I think it's fixed now. I've also made the font a little narrower. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Location map
I replied on my talk page. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Establishment of Religion
I must apologize for my earlier tone towards you in edit summaries and discussions of this article. That subject had come under attack in the past by people pushing a very specific (American) political viewpoint and I was far too quick to jump to the conclusion that you were doing this as well. Once again, even for experienced editors, it's easy to forget WP:AGF. Thanks for you effort and patience! --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Loonymoney, that's very kind of you. I know I wasn't nearly as patient as I should have been either - and reverting you was the probably the wrong response. Most editors have forgotten to assume good faith from time to time, very few apologise, so thank you. And happy editing. --Lo2u (T • C) 01:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland
Do as I do, Lo2u. Let that article (aswell as England, Wales & Northern Ireland) have its nationalist slant. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * GD would you just stop making that "nationalist slant" accusation. You have seen all the citation tables and the discussions.  Either justify the statement or withdraw it.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowded I've never made "that nationalist slant accusation" before so I can't really stop making it. I think I was quite civil and I did attempt to justify it. I have seen all the tables and citations, and as I said my concern isn't with what Scotland is called. GoodDay, thanks for warning me. I'm not interested in an argument. Just hoped I could talk sensibly about it. After all, those other articles all have the same opening sentence. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking to Goodday (I started GD) as he has been putting this ine out on a few pages. Your edit was in good faith, but you might want to look at the history of the subject and the various citations.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, I thought that was text message language or something. I've actually looked through most of that and I agree it's all cited and accurate but that's not really my point. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you might want to look through all the prior conversations on the same subject as well - all indicated in the header.  -- Snowded   TALK  18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No I really have seen most of the evidence, The charts counting all the different citations and so on. The problem is simply one of phrasing, it's not that this is inaccurate or unverified. And my point has been made before but not really answered. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you check back through you will see that I tried at one point to get a common lede on Scotland, Wales and England.  Something more like that on Wales which is probably closer to what you want on Scotland.  However there was no agreement to that and my own view at the end is that provided (i) they are countries and (ii) it is clear they are part of the UK then its OK and there are better things to worry about.  The point I am really making above is that the specific lede has been discussed (although its not easy to be find) many times before ad introducing the subject ends up with unionist-nationalist debates, spills over into other pages and attracts sockpuppets and other wiki-ills.  its just not worth it.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (Res to Snowded), I never claimed there was lack of citations. The usage of country, etc is fully backed by reliable sources. I'm merely offering my PoV (note I didn't offer it at the article-in-question). GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Snowded, I hadn't noticed your suggested common opening, and I've not been able to find it. Out of interest, what was it? I really did want to discuss this without any of the nationalist/ unionist discussion or accusations of trolling that seem to go with it. There's no way around it though: not mentioning the UK in the opening is extremely unusual. In fact, if Scotland became independent and the UK became a sort of loose commonwealth of nations with the Queen as head of state, as some nationalists would like, this opening would not need to be changed. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My original suggestion was the form used on Wales. However the UK is mentioned in the Scotish opening and its not possible to read it as implying that Scotland was independent.  I don't see that the introduction in any way implies that the UK is a commonwealth of nations (and personally I don't think the Queen should be head of anything but that is another matter!)  -- Snowded   TALK  20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think Alex Salmond is happy for the queen to continue. The article doesn't say what Scotland is, and especially with the country fact box that's a problem. The form used on Wales is good; much better than the current form. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never understand why any nationalist would support monarchy! I think the fact box is OK given the lede is clear and the article is about Scotland remember.  -- Snowded   TALK  20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowded, just out of curiosity and maybe I'm being very ignorant: lede - is it a Scottish variant spelling of "lead"? --Lo2u (T • C) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now its a Wikipedia convention, I sort of picked it up while editing Philosophy -- Snowded  TALK  22:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note above I retract my accusation of those 4 articles having a nationalist bend. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

…
authored: past participle of author

written: past participle of write

write: be the author of

Since they mean the same thing, I don't care that it's presently written. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it was you who originally reverted it. It's just inelegant, that's all. --Lo2u (T • C) 04:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

European Union
I misunderstood ya earlier. I thought you were comparing the UK within the EU with England/Scotland/N.Ireland/Wales within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. I'm with you. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK
Ok, then everything is in order.JdeJ (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, if that was a mistake please don't worry about it. I can appreciate all the comments might have been rather difficult to digest. --Lo2u (T • C) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, I would encourage you to do the same. There still seems to be very little discussion on the actual merits of an EU map. --Lo2u (T • C) 16:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COUNTRIES
What do you think about opening up the discussion at WP:COUNTRIES? There is not going to be any progress at the UK article if they keep on pressing the "because the other EU countries do it" argument, because the logical conclusion of that is maintaining the status quo until eternity. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Pat. Well, although I'm a little reluctant I supppose that is the logical next step. I tend to think that the absence of any consensus at WP:COUNTRIES originally makes it unnecessary. No common approach was ever proposed. No one objected a few weeks ago when someone replaced the green map. And in reality no common map layout exists. Insisting now that nothing can be changed without discussion at WP:COUNTRIES, when that has obviously not been the case with any previous changes that have been made, really strikes me as WP:Wikilawyering. Still, if it's the only way... I'm afraid I won't be able to do any more tonight but I'll have a look tomorrow morning. Good night. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WILDERS
Lo2u, I noticed you reverted my edit on Jacqi Smith. Which part of my addition did you have a problem with? I'm tempted to think that it's 'Little Brittain', am I correct? The rest of the addition is factual although one may debate whether Smith actually did do a 'Chamberlain' here. However, I think that's an often used and to the point, thus valid comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch91310 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that it has not happened in 200 years that the UK has barred access to an MP of an Allied country. This is most definitely a newsworthy addition that improves the quality of the wikipedia and thus any and all rules you might want to apply is void and null in my opinion. I will revert your reversal but change the potentially abusive 'Little Brittain'. Dutch91310 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dutch. The banning of this politician clearly outrages you and your outrage comes through in the article. There's nothing neutral about your tone. Talk of "doing a Neville Chamberlain" and Great Britain becoming little Britain doesn't suggest a remotely neutrality either. Secondly, while this is a point of major notability when it comes to the article on the Dutch MP, it isn't a particularly noteworthy episode when in the Home Secretary's life. Jacqui Smith hasn't really been spoken of much in connection with the story and not everything that every government department does automatically needs a paragraph in the minister's biography. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Lo2u, I did rewrite a good chunk of the addition I made based on advice from other editors. I believe it to be a neutral explanation of what happened and it's not so much a news item as it is a historical event. Aside from that I think it is clearly more relevant than Smith admitting to smoking cannabis don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutch91310 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dutch, who says Smith is like CHamberlain? Is there some published source? If it's your own observation, I suggest you read WP:NOR. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AN OLD TOPIC
Hi, you probably won't recall this readily but I asked about advice on making the Police Use of Firearms in the United Kingdom article better, that was since September. I just want to apologize for not responding, I sort of gave up on the idea, infact I haven't been on wikipedia since. What I perceived as ideological biases of some editors turned  me off from wanting to participate much in editing the article. I didn't want to get into a back and forth.

Out of curiosity I looked up the article again, maybe I was a little lazy and hoped that someone else would do the work. At this point with the article expanded I don't even know how to incorporate the information we were speaking about, I even doubt how important it is really, I suspect that not much people read it. Once again, my apologies. All the best. User 070 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi 070. I do recall it. I was also a little lazy because I intended to have a proper look at the whole article and I haven't. Is there any particular information that you want to incorporate, perhaps a particular website link you could point me to for example? If so I don't mind taking a look. My internet connection is limited for the next few days so I might not get back to you immediately. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The info I thought would be useful to include in the article were statistics of fatalities/injuries of AFOs and those of unarmed officers. Also the response time of Armed Response Vehicles to calls as compared with that of the regular police. I went to the Home Office website, they have general crime statistics but it's very difficult for me to get these specifics. I have some difficulty downloading the large PDF files there, maybe someone with a faster computer wouldn't encounter this problem. Not surprisingly there are alot more hits for searches on shootings by the police as opposed to of the police. And there doesn't seem one specific place I can go to to get stats over a period of time. I'll try the ACPO website and other British police websites. I appreciate whatever help you're able to offer. User 070 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, could you point out the links to the large pdfs and I'll have a look? Thanks.--Lo2u (T • C) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you'll have to excuse my awkwardness when it comes to sending links and doing technical things, but I believe [http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/firearms/ may have some useful info and also [http://homeoffice/rds/bc-publications.html some other links are very long, I believe if I even attempt to link these sights it would be a waste of time. Im not even exactly sure if the links I gave are the pdf files  —Preceding unsigned comment added by User 070 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Um some other links are http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb209.pd and http://homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb07  I hope I linked these files properly. I'm assuming that what I'm looking for will be found there. Once again, thanks. User 070 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi 070, thanks for that. I'm having a few connection problems at the moment so I won't be able to do very much now but I'll get back to you the next few days. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi 070, sorry I've taken so long. I should be able to respond quicker now. I agree that would be really useful information. I've often tried to extract statistics from UK government websites and nearly always failed. Friends of mine who work for thinktanks tell me they often end up approaching departments, or the ONS, directly. I just tried to open both your links and neither seemed to work. I looked for similar addresses and came up with this. Unfortunately it just seemed to be 238 pages of crime statistics, the prevalance of various categories of crime and so on, nothing much about actual policing. I had a look through the article too and it's definitely a lot less anti-police than a few months ago. I wasn't very happy with the controversial shootings section and have made a few changes. I know you're not a very regular user so I'll check back regularly. There's no rush if you don't see this immediately. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the links, I think they may have been longer than what I typed. Anyway I think I corrected the problems I was having with my Adobe Reader, so hopefully I'll be able to view the pdfs now. I'm less interested in how anti-police or pro-police the article looks than I am in informing the reader on the effectiveness of the policy. I don't think however that I'm necessarily in the best position to be doing this, that's why I was kind of hoping someone who's more knowledgable and lives in the UK might take more of an interest. However, it seems that most of the people who take any sort of interest in the article don't put much focus on the current effectiveness of the policy. The few lines given to recent fatalities of police, deal with how rare it is that they're shot dead, implying that they must be killed to even merit mention, while the section dealing with shootings by the police doesn't have any such requirements. I added to that paragraph the fact multiple officers were shot in both incidents, and not simply those that died. One editor is trying to get me to believe that those who disagree with the policy there in the UK are marginalized to such an extent that no one takes them seriously, is he correct in his assertion? I find it hard to accept that he is, when the article itself states that this topic is a "perennial suject of debate". Anyway, thanks for your help. User 070 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your comment on the Waterboarding bullsh...I mean talk page. It's nice to see that there is at least one person that can have a civilized discussion. I just couldn't take the personal attacks anymore. Good luck in the future.  Josh  ua In  gram   21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok. It's a shame really, Wikipedia is usually quite good at presenting subjects neutrally. Unfortunately in this case some editors have decided that their own opinions are so obviously the truth that the normal standards on neutral point of view should be suspended. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your post on my talkpage. Just incase you weren't checking. User 070 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bent bananas
Your edits to Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No_2257/94 are really good, it is much less partisan now. Thanks! 86.15.111.76 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bent bananas
Your edits to Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No_2257/94 are really good, it is much less partisan now. Thanks! 86.15.111.76 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's no problem. There's a discussion about a possible move and rewrite of Euromyth at talk Talk:Euromyth if you have any comments. I think it's in everyone's interests, with one side complaining it will inevitably present Euro-Sceptics in a poor light without allowing room for opposing views, and the other regretting there can't be more discussion of what is seen as media distorted coverage, it might make everyone happy. Best whishes. --Lo2u (T • C) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Map
This map does not give any units or a reference of were the data comes from. Wondering if you have that info? Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Indeed, the description page was a real mess. My fault. That was the initial page when the image was uploaded, which I really thought I'd updated using the template in the other map. It was a while ago. Maybe I forgot or maybe I edited it and the edit didn't take. Anyway, the image is an illustration of the data in List of countries by intentional homicide rate, which is the only place it appears. The original sources are so numerous that I would rather not itemise them on a page that is not in the article space, unless you really think it's necessary. Anyway, hope it's ok now. If not, please tell me. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demigod, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cato, Genii and Heroes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unique"
Hello. Perhaps you missed my edit summary. In this context, "unique" means that the vessel is not part of a ship class. Please stop removing it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I did indeed miss the edit summary and I wouldn't have reverted had I noticed it; I just saw the blank summary. I take the point, but I still don't like the way this reads. Can't it simply say that it is the only ship in its class? -Lo2u (T • C) 19:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem - my finger slipped and hit enter while I was typing the summary. One of the small problems with the new notification systems, I suppose. In any event, if you want to reword it, that's fine. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mein Kampf
Hi, I reverted your recent good faith edit at Mein Kampf, concerning the fact that the book is widely available in U.S. community libraries. This is, in fact, the case, though it be surprising to you. I'm not sure how to persuade you, but I picked a town at random (Winchester, VA) that I found on some website, and found a copy on the shelf in their library (here). Iowa's in the news lately due to the caucases, so I picked Bettendorf, Iowa (pop. 32,000) off the WP article List of cities in Iowa, and their copy is here. Algona, Iowa is a town of 5,000, and their copy is here. Three examples are not proof, of course. If you really think that this is a surprising claim, then please add a cn tag on the statement, but if you search around on your own, you'll see that it's very widely, almost universally available. Perhaps very tiny public libraries might not have it, but any U.S. public library with a decent number of books on the history of WWII should have a copy. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm happy to leave a cn tag to give you time to look for a source but it's not a permanent substitute for a proper citation. If the information isn't verifiable it doesn't belong in the article. I accept from what you say that it's probably in the majority of libraries, perhaps the vast majority, but I'm not convinced that anecdotal evidence allows "virtually all" to be asserted. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just noticed your toning down and I'm a little happier. Incidentally, I used the List of New York Public Library branches to try to verify this. Of the first ten, all offer access to the same online text but only one has a print edition. I may not be using the catalogue correctly but I don't think that's the case, and I accept there may be something unusual about these libraries (if they hold particular collections, for example). The catalogue you referred me to has 17 copies in 33 libraries. This doesn't leave me convinced. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mobile phones and driving safety, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobile. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Gentle reminder...
I know you've been here a while, but please try not to discreetly undo someone's edits rather than use the undo button and remember to follow BRD. Thanks and happy editing. :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sorry. I should have been a bit more considerate in how I went about that. It seemed less controversial than it probably was. I don't think an undo would have done the job though because you had made another edit. Regards and thank you for being so civil. --Lo2u (T • C) 08:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's forgotten :) -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

re: DOND
Tour episodes don't count as official studio episodes, for the most part it's finished already and the tour episodes are just to "farewell" the series properly. Things should be written in past tense when they're done, not in the present as though they're still happening, because that's not accurate and misleading. --CitroenLover (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, I suggest you follow the practice for every article on every discontinued television series on Wikipedia and read MOS:VERB. --Lo2u (T • C) 11:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I've never watched an episode of DOND so am probably not qualified to comment on what counts as an "official" episode but my understanding of this on BBC News is that "official studio episodes" are still going to be broadcast: "the studio-based show will end this autumn" --Lo2u (T • C) 11:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) If you want me to respond to anything, post to my talkpage. I'm not going to hunt down random user talkpages hoping for a response.
 * 2) If you've never watched a single episode, then it makes your point moot.
 * 3) Official episodes are the studio based episodes. The news reports have misinterpreted the official line: Noel is taking the show out on a tour for the final series and after the final series, the series is discontinued. --CitroenLover (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really a random user talk page is it? You began a discussion here so it shouldn't surprise you if there's a reply in the same thread. I'm simply following normal Wikipedia practice for talk pages, the same practice I've followed for ten years of editing and that I've come to assume others will follow. And nobody has ever complained. Anyway this discussion is pointless because, regardless of when the last one was or will be, we use the present tense. Once again, please refer to the the Manual of Style. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)