Talk:The Thick of It

message: it seems, there is a german spin-off, named Eichwald, MdB  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.43.175 (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin-Off

message: Some of the 'see also's are pretty tenuous. What's the standard for inclusion? If Frontline why not Drop The Dead Donkey? I think we limit it to specifically satires of politics in government. If you disagree, by all means change back...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.38.142 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: Unless I'm misunderstanding, it says 6 new episodes have been commissioned at the start of the article, and 10 at the end; does anyone know the correct info, or is it referring to 2 different things? --hooverbag 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of new episodes commissioned?

message: This morning's Morning Edition says this series is coming to the USA, any detail?  68.73.199.88 13:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming to the US?

message: Armando Iannucci is not the sole writer of the show - there are several others including Jesse Armstrong and Tony Roche. Full list?Matt Leys 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a selection of the writers most heavily involved, and a general tidy. Bob talk 19:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writers 

message: How was Hugh Abbot written out?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.20.229 (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbot

message: We really need consensus on this before the new series comes out. The original Chris Langham ones were broadcast in two batches of three episodes, originally advertised as two series. However, since then, and particularly on the DVD release, they've been referred to as the "first series". We could do with consistency on the matter - my opinion is that the ones coming out on the 23rd should be referred to as "series 2", but it would be good to have agreement. Bob talk 10:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is three series, with the first two being three episodes long. ISD (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with ISD — twas certainly the impression I got upon their first broadcast. Also, the plural of series is series, so those two series were the first two series... DBD 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, BBC iPlayer titles this evening's instalment Series 3 Episode 1 DBD 20:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Annoying, despite calling the recent series "Series 3", the BBC DVD box set calls the first six episodes "Series 1, Parts 1 and 2" almost-instinct 10:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 

message: Does anyone fancy collaborating on getting this article up to Good Article standard? There's definitely enough material out there - plenty of production info from the DVDs and the "Out of..." specials, plus interviews, press releases, reviews, etc. It seems like a series ripe for improvement now that the 3rd series has finished, but it might be quite an undertaking by oneself, and I was wondering if there are any offers for particular sections people would like to work on? Bob talk 13:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement? 

message: Anyone know if this is the same Ian Martin who does martian.fm? Mr Larrington (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it's the same chap. His Twitter feed is here. Bob talk 19:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: but he is not this one ..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.99.215 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian Martin

message: The article says at this point: "On 2 April 2007, a DVD of the first six episodes was released as "The Complete First Series"." Yet my 2-disc British edition from 2007 clearly says "The Complete Series One & Two" on the packaging as well as on the discs.
Later in this article the plot of seasons 1 & 2 is detailed and after that there is talk of season (series) 4. What about season 3? Do the 1-hour-specials count as season 3? Or is it due to the same mix-up about the first six episodes either counting as one or as two seasons? 89.204.153.64 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, no one knows. And that includes the BBC. Sometimes they refer to Series One as the first three episodes and Series Two as the second batch of three episodes and the specials as no particular episode, sometimes they refer to the fist six episodes as one series (on further occasions split into two seasons). To be honest there's no point worrying about it because there's no right or wrong answer. The resecently aired series (i.e. eight episodes that ended in Malcolm's departure and return) is more often than not referred to as Series Three so I would say: Series one was the first three, Series Two was the second three, the specials were specials (i.e. in no particular series) and we've just enjoyed Series Three. Series Four is in the works now. Confusing I know. raseaCtalk to me 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *edit conflict* It's a bit strange - the first two 'series' were only three episodes long each and broadcast a few months apart in 2005, but for the DVD they were packaged together as "The Complete First Series" , working I assume on the principle that British comedy series are usually six episodes long. As a result, on my early DVD at least, they're listed as "series 1, part 1" and "series 1, part 2". This encompasses all the episodes with Chris Langham. Then there were the two hour-long specials, which aren't really a series, and as such were called "The Specials" on DVD. Then, to confuse matters, the recent 2009, 8-episode long series was released as "The Complete Series 3", leaving them looking rather like there was no second series. So, any mention of "series 4" will refer to any future new series. Hope that's some help. Bob talk 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Counting of Seasons

message: I am restructuring the article according to list-defined references and the Manual of Style. If you want to help, great; if you don't, please find amusement elsewhere. 86.45.146.39 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making major unilateral changes, which I tend to think should not be made until there is discussion. Please wait and read our civility policy while you are doing so. (I've outlined a couple of my problems on your talkpage.) ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have nothing to offer in improving the article, have the bloody decency to allow me to finish the restrucuring or at least explain why you are reintroducing poorly formatted clutter. No more edit conflicts, please. 86.45.146.39 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been protected for three days to avoid the edit-war. My problems are: the increase in the size of the image was somewhat malformatted. I don't agree with harvesting off as much of the Into the Loop material to the "subarticle" as you call it. Retitling see also is not at all the norm, across Wikipedia. Basically, just slow down, calm down, wait for some input... there's no hurry at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, fine, if you're going to be rude and refuse to discuss your edits, that's what's inevitably going to happen... ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairly certain if I was trying to fix an article and some tool of a bureaucrat (you were rude to him yourself) jumped in both feet first I'd see my arse as well.  Good job, T.  No wonder Wikipedia's dying when there's a bigger cabal of rule obsessed mods than there are editors.  Your associates are no nicer, calling him an asshole, and deciding if he's the type of editor WP needs.  Utterly charmless, the lot of you. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: 86.45.146.39, I haven't even looked at the edits you've made but from what I can see on this talk I would say that, at the moment, you are probably not the sort of editor the project needs . If you're going to be so incivil towards other editors, even when they rise above your incivility, I think we can probably manage without your input. Thanks, raseaCtalk to me 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (My thoughts precisely. They weren't altogether pleasant on their own talkpage either!) ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BITE. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, if they can quote WP:AGF and WP:MOS and WP:LDR at me, then they're not a newbie. Secondly, you just don't speak to others like that. Thirdly, my messages were all perfectly polite and reasonable and non-bitey. Not BITE. At all. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, Treasury demonstrated exceptional restraint above; he was polite and helpful even after the IP acted like a complete WP:DICK. Biting only counts when the newbie isn't an undeniable asshole. raseaCtalk to me 21:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Fair enough - hands up. Page is on my watchlist and I have edited, and when I saw this I jumped to conclusions. Apologies - I agree that undeniable asshole overides BITE, I didn't spot it this time. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructing 

message: Given his continually growing fame, I was surprised to see that there isn't a Malcolm Tucker (fictional character) article - has this been discussed before. A handy place to put some of those marvellous quotes and generally keep up with the great man as he continues to emotionally develop into the upcoming series. Just wondered if there have been objections to this in the past. At present, this article seems quite slimline for such a major series. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's been ruled out (Malcolm Tucker currently redirects to this article). The problem I find is that character articles often end up being just like you describe - full of quotes, plot regurgitation and unsourced speculation without any references, for example the article on Bernard Woolley. As you say, the main The Thick of It article is currently in need of some extra information about production/writing, etc, so really that would be more useful than a character article. Bob talk 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree about the regurg stuff Bob - I thought we might get further with our Malc, partly because there is a lot of interesting press material comparing him with AC, etc, which within BLP some of which would be usable and also because there is as you know a huge amount of interview material with Ianucci and Capaldi talking about the character, etc. So I wasn't intending a standard Wikipedia character-drone page. It would be fun to collaborate on this with you and also expanding the current article to have additional material on the newer series-es, the Specials, etc, as you request above. Time, holidays and weather permitting. Gotta dash now - got some opposition w***ers to inform of their upcoming funerals. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malcolm Tucker article? 

message: This sentence in the introduction seems quite misleading. If you follow up the footnote, Campbell is in fact directly contradicting the comparison. This ought to be specified. Pechark (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alistair Campbell 'acknowledges' the comparison between him and Malcolm Tucker? 

message: Was the initial plan really to make and broadcast ten further episodes after the first special in 2007? The source link is now dead, and it seems highly unlikely that the loss of Chris Langham alone would lead to such a drastic reduction. U-Mos (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten episodes planned for 2007? 

message: I listed the first 2 episodes in a grid format and provided the plot description as it hadn't been done yet, but for some reason it isn't appearing in its required section. Please may someone fix it as I don't know how.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.45.101 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 4 episode list is messed up 

message: "A running thread throughout the [fourth] series is an ongoing "Leveson-style public enquiry"." - this is sourced to an Iannucci quote from July about plans for such a plotline. Was this dropped for the broadcast episodes, or was I just not paying enough attention when I watched it? --McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leveson references 

message: Langham's legal troubles and the resultant loss of a hit show's lead actor is the one factual piece of information that is of interest to a general public and needs to be mentioned within the first few sentences. It's more notable than any of the awards the show has received. I added it once and it was removed, but I'm adding it back. Any further changes should be discussed here. Acsenray (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that this needs to be mentioned at this level of detail in the lead section, especially in somewhat inappropriate language ("the show suffered a shock"). While Langham's removal from the programme undoubtedly resulted in a significant change of cast (which probably should be mentioned), this is discussed in the main article. Devoting a whole paragraph about it in the lead of the article about the programme is giving this undue weight; when you say "of interest to a general public", I'm not sure for whom you speak, really. Bob talk 23:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just said why this needs to be mentioned in the lead section. Langham's arrest and conviction is the one most notable fact about this show. Anyone who knows nothing else about this show will be interested in the one fact that its lead character had to be replaced because of a child pornography charge. As it stands now, the article is doing what is called "burying the lead." This show, to someone who is not a fan is "the show whose lead actor was charged with child pornography possession" and this fact must be in the lead section. If you think that I have used "inappropriate language" then edit that language to make it appropriate. I am reverting again and I expect that this will not be removed from the lead again without a resolution in discussion or some other mechanism. Acsenray (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure this is really "the one most notable fact about this show", and that the general public think of it in these terms? There's a new series running at the moment, but a Google search for all news coverage of it over the past year has only one brief mention of Langham - if this really is "the show whose lead actor was charged with child pornography possession" in the minds of the general public, I'd expect to see that reflected by journalists who cater to that public. --McGeddon (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to add my voice to removing this from the lead. This is a very popular show in its own right, and is not defined as the show with the convicted paedo ex-lead actor from the first series. It is right that this should be in the lead for Langham's own article (which it is), but not for this one. I will revert tomorrow unless somebody can put forward an argument that has some consensus.--ML5 (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It should absolutely not be in the lead here. A passing mention the body text is all that is needed. The topic relates to Langham and only barely touches on the thrust of this article. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 18:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I have now removed this paragraph, but have also used it as an opportunity to trim out the endless list of awards and add a little more relevant detail. However, I still feel it needs a bit of an overhall - perhaps when the series ends (assuming this is the last series). Bob talk 19:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Langham's conviction needs to be mentioned in the lead 

message: What is the status of the series now that Peter Capaldi is joining Doctor Who? 68.146.69.225 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of series?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Thick of It. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927051035/http://www.paramountcomedy.com/comedy/news/article.aspx?id=671 to http://www.paramountcomedy.com/comedy/news/article.aspx?id=671
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Thick of It. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090112095545/http://www.thelondonpaper.com:80/cs/Satellite/london/comedy/article/1157140422912?packedargs=suffix%3DSubSectionArticle to http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satellite/london/comedy/article/1157140422912?packedargs=suffix%3DSubSectionArticle
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Thick of It. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5p6kTm4hN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscars.org%2Fawards%2Facademyawards%2F82%2Fnominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070306050929/http://www.zap2it.com:80/tv/news/zap-christopherguestdirectingthethickofit,0,7175185.story?track=rss to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-christopherguestdirectingthethickofit,0,7175185.story?track=rss
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522041411/http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-pilotcasting-oliverplattchrislowell,0,2672707.story?track=rss to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-pilotcasting-oliverplattchrislowell,0,2672707.story?track=rss
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522041419/http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-gilmoregirlsmelissamccarthyjoinsabcpilot,0,3297088.story?track=rss to http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-gilmoregirlsmelissamccarthyjoinsabcpilot,0,3297088.story?track=rss
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120812091834/http://www.faber.co.uk:80/work/thick-of-it-missing-dosac-files/9780571272549/ to http://www.faber.co.uk/work/thick-of-it-missing-dosac-files/9780571272549/
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) 05:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: you tagged this in May 2016? Can you be more specific? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, all of it except the first one-and-a-half sentences, which are supported by the section's sole reference. Everything else is unreferenced, except to the extent that the final paragraph is a list of examples which perhaps is intended to serve as evidence for points raised in earlier paragraphs. Maybe whoever wrote the section was synopsising information they read in some third-party accounts of the show, in which case they should have cited their sources; or maybe they were just synopsising the show themselves after watching the episodes a few times. jnestorius(talk) 09:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  per MOS:PLOTSOURCE Plot sections don't need inline citations when using the show itself as a primary source for its plot, which is not considered original research. At any rate, proceed to doing whatever it is that you think needs to be done here rather than leave the tag up forever. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, , if it's original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd rather leave the tag than delete statements that are probably true albeit unreferenced. If you take the opposite view, that's OK. jnestorius(talk) 10:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in the Plot section 

message: The actor Christopher Douglas is missing from the cast list, as is the name of the supporting character he plays, Glen. He is rather a passive figure, most of the time; but he is standing in shot when Malcolm Tucker enters in the massive irretrievable data loss scene; and tries to warn Nicola Murray MP that Tucker doesn't know about it yet. His uninclusion is a glaring omission.
Nuttyskin (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Douglas