Talk:Jeremy's Mummy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Unexplained references

These are unexplained references either because I don't understand what is being said or I don't get the reference itself. Please be patient with my weak phonetic attempts at communicating what I'm hearing and please help!

  • kebob shop stabbings Mark tells Martin that he wanted to write an article for the local newspaper, "not that it would really fit in with all the kebob shop stabbings" Is this in reference to a rash of news stories?
  • Cesar Corrigain When deciding on which way he would advice Jeremy's parents on whether the inheritance would benefit him or not, Mark opined, "which way will Cesar Corrigan's thumb point?" I must be mishearing this -- I realize that Cesar's thumbs up/down is being referenced, but I swear it sounds like "Cesar Corrigan" to me.
  • Terimy sue While counting his blessings at dinner, Mark concluded with "and I've got a terimy sue!" Eh? A dessert, a pastry?
  • Divina After Mark dramatically hesitates in response to his question, "Have you got my money?", Jeremy said, "Don't do the pause, Mark, you're not Divina."
  • C and D badge" Martin's daughter says her "hippy" teacher gave her this.
  • Eurofin Jeremy said he made this for his breakfast (I know I'm way off on this one)
  • Jez says Natalie is "guilty as a ??spark??" right after he says she is O.J.
  • Martin says in response to Mark's question "Did you see much action", "Malaysia, not pretty. Falklands, ??dissay??.

∴ Therefore | talk 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your enthusiasm, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia isn't the place to pick through sitcom scripts explaining in detail every single thing that the dialogue refers to, and listing some of the individual props that you noticed. It doesn't add very much to the article, it risks being original research ("catering call"?), and it greatly reduces both the readability and neatness of the article.
Wikipedia policy warns against getting bogged down in indiscriminate lists of details; we should concentrate on a clear plot summary, and the wider impact and significance of the episode (if any). --McGeddon (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to keep this while we are in the discussion.Would you please define what you mean by an "indiscriminate lists of details". How is this different from the thousands of other episode pages that make the effort to explain the cultural references? This doesn't include "every single thing that the dialogue refers to" as you mischaracterize it. Instead, it refers to those references that are not immediately clear to every viewer. What "props" are included? The three books? Those were in the script and were pointedly mentioned as a comment on the slightness of the reading library of Gwen. Possibly that was clear to you but to others I see gaining insight.
But even if your position is that the books shouldn't be included, then argue for its exclusion rather than the draconian deletion of the entire material. Instead of making broad statements, let's discuss particular problems that we can remedy. Let's pick one: Are you saying that the Jonathan Dimbleby explanation doesn't "add very much to the article"? ∴ Therefore | talk 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the Arrested Development articles contain a lot of borderline original research, they do at least focus on some of the larger themes of each show. They don't get down to the tiny details of explaining every American slang word used in the episode, or listing all American celebrities or products or historical world leaders that might have been namechecked in passing. Your list is indiscriminate because it doesn't seem to have any boundaries - it seems as if any reference made by any of the characters is fair game, and as such could be expanded to several pages.
There are some useful references in this list, but they'd be more useful if they were simply worked into the plot summary - the Antony Beevor conversation gave us some new insight into Mark's character, and it'd better to briefly explain that in the plot summary (with a wikilink to Beevor's article), than to flatly explain who Beevor is and that Mark reads his books, with no context. --McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Because I have a few minutes to spare....
  • kebob shop stabbings - in London (and indeed most British cities) there are a lot of kebab (as we spell it) shops, and stabbings are not infrequent. This is more to do with them often being the only open establishments late at night/early in the morning, and often serving people who are in various states of drunkenness. [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • Cesar Corrigain - Corrigan is Mark's own surame.
  • Divina - Davina McCall presents the British version of Big Brother (UK), and inevitably pauses as long as is decently possible between saying, "the Xth person to be evicted it..." and actually saying the name.
  • C and D badge" - CND.
Would have to re-watch the episode to check the rest. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The substance mentioned for breakfast was Neurofen, which is a mild painkiller for headaches. And the word after "Falklands" is "ditto". I have no idea how to edit this page properly, but that's the information.

[edit] Watch out

If you're thinking of creating episode pages for every episode of Peep Show I'd advise against it. Per WP:EPISODE they do not show much real-world notability. There used to be pages for every episode, but they were merged. If you can find reliably sourced information about the production and reception of this episode, then great, but if not, it's probably best to just merge it into the main list. Gran2 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't simply a restatement of the synopsis but a guide to the cultural references and Britishisms used in the program that makes it accessible to a much larger audience. This is in keeping with, say, the Arrested Development (TV series) episode for one of many examples. Why would these references need to be merged into the episode list? This isn't trivia. Thoughts? 10:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Therefore (talk • contribs)
Are there any examples of Arrested Development episodes that go into this much detail? Skimming random episode articles, they only seem to mention two or three references at most (and even then, quite a few of those are WP:OR) - they don't go into the minutiae of explaining Stalin and paracetamol, and listing the titles of books that a character glanced at.
It's not Wikipedia's job to make fictional works "accessible to a much larger audience" by documenting any references that editors feel that certain readers might miss. Imagine how unreadable this would make the average article about a novel or film. --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Good Grief Motherboy XXX The Immaculate Election Sword of Destiny Meat the Veals Spring Breakout Righteous Brothers (Arrested Development episode) ∴ Therefore | talk 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is Stalin minutia? Is it because that everyone understands the reference? Or is it because you (and I) undoubtedly understands the reference? Why is paracetamol minutia? Do you perceive that this page is published under britain.wikipedia? It is published in en.wikipedia and non-British viewers may not know what it is and, therefore, may not get the joke. Is it harmful to allow the viewer to have a better understanding of the references? I agree that such parsing would be problematic for a novel with thousand times more pages to glean from. I suspect the War and Peace page would be as long (if not longer) than the actual novel. But this is a radically smaller subset and therefore it is a difference of type more than simply a difference of degree and the pool of references available are much much smaller. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the references listed are I'm afraid, nothing but trivia. I mean does Pocket money really need an explanation? Also, unsourced "guide"s to cultural references and Britishisms are not only pretty much original research, and not that encyclopedic, but also not enough out of universe information to justify keeping the article. Gran2 15:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So let's discuss "pocket money". Are you saying that to all ears that "pocket money" means a child's allowance? I know what "out of the universe" means and I'm not writing this from the perspective of any character but instead providing an explanation of the cultural references. Paddy Ashdown trivial? Routemaster bus? Please explain how they are trivial and I will explain why they are not.
To address your last point, let's look at other series that makes references that are explicated: The Spirit of Christmas Are You There God? It's Me, Jesus Butters' Very Own Episode I'm with Cupid I'm with Cupid The Great Money Caper. This is 2 minutes of research. If you would like to see a hundred, a thousand, I'd be happy to provide. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 16:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Those pages have at most a dozen references - some are useful, pointing out significant, larger themes of the episodes ("The events of the episode parallel the well-publicized case of Susan Smith."), while others are apparently trivial namechecks of songs heard in the background. I can't see any that explain all American slang used in the episode, or list minor celebrities mentioned in passing, or explain who Stalin is or how American gun culture differs from that of other countries. --McGeddon (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying although I would quibble that those pages listed above, are restricted to references that are thematically relevant -- there are many examples where that is not the case and others where, as you noted, that there are.
So I gather there are two issues here: First is the quantity which reflects the richness of referencing done in this series (Couples, another brilliant show, would require only a handful per ep) and secondly, reflects my attempt to take it "out of the British universe", let alone the entire universe. That Mark made a purported bon mot about Gummo Marx will be lost on the majority of viewers, British and American. That Norman Mailer was only loosely affiliated as an original source of gonzo journalism will, again, be lost. So the average non-British viewer should just assume that it is humorous that Mark compared Martin to Ashdown? Isn't it funnier to know what Ashdown looks like and who he is? Terms like "Tom bowler", yardie, busman's holiday have no meaning to our ears without a cultural explanation. I agree that tranny and prossy are probably well known (at least in context) and may be candidates for exclusion. Without some guidance for the non-British viewer (in this case, an American viewer), the show will be stripped of its textual comedic depth and provide many viewers only the more broadly comedic elements of the show. Possibly you don't know that from this U.S. viewer, this show provides more intellectual depth than the majority of drek on our televison.
Secondly, your advice to incorporate the references into the plot. That is the best-of-all-worlds but then we risk making the synopsis too detailed which is not a standard. Is part of your concern that it is presented in tabular, alphabetic format rather than attempting to create a prose section discussing the references, providing complete context vs. the short-hand version that I attempted in the table? OK, Ian Curtis is namedchecked -- the viewer could probably infer that the joke was about a dead, pop-star non-relation (I guess I'm a little slow because I didn't get that). But I put Brewster's Millions in the context of the show. OK, everyone knows O.J. and I presume you believe that five or ten years from now, that reference will continue to be crystal clear but I don't believe that is true. We should write articles that aren't only written for the contemporary reader (let alone only for the British reader). Nor should we write articles for the greatest common denominator -- i.e., presume a complex set of knowledge. Stalin is namechecked, so is Iron Chancellors and I guess that within the context the person who is not knowledgeable of either one could still appreciate the underlying joke. But I question what harm is done in holding the hands of some readers who may not get that the Hamlet reference is an analogue of Jeremy's relationship with her mother and Martin. What is the harm in providing that information to the interested reader? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The gun reference reflects one of the primary themes of the episode. To the American eye, this fear of unlawfulness would make little sense unless they were aware that Britain, as a civilization, has no "gun culture". But if this is trivial from your perspective, again, I'm open to discussions of exclusions. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia's place to provide universal context for every single detail of all cultural material, simply because we'd be drawing the line so low. Yes, we can add a lot to an American's appreciation of the show by explaining every single slang word and passing reference, and we can add to someone else's enjoyment by explaining who Stalin and Hamlet are, but this makes for an indiscriminate list of information with no clear criteria for where we stop listing details. Do we mention a jar of Marmite in the background of a shot, in case an American was wondering what it was? Do we explain what mortgages and Jesus are?
If something is of significant relevance to the wider show (that the gun is illegal, and that Mark is maybe less of a history buff than he'd like to think) then it can either go in the plot summary, or get a brief meta-level explanation in a separate section.
Don't get me wrong, it's great that you're putting so much effort into researching what's easily the best sitcom on television at the moment, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia just isn't the place for this level of detail, and it's ultimately going to be cut back or deleted entirely. It'd be a lot more useful for American fans if you created a Peep Show wiki at somewhere like Wikia, and filled it with as much minutiae as you liked. I'd be happy to come over there and help fill in the blanks about tiramisu, tombolas, CND, Davina McCall, and everything else. --McGeddon (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(uninent) I tenaciously slog on. Citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE isn't sufficient. We need to see which part of this policy is applicable here and then I may possibly explain why an exception should be made in this case, a competing policy.

The only item in this section that is applicable is 2. Plot summaries.

Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.

This isn't part of the plot summary nor should it be as it wouldn't be concise instead, I argue, it is part of the larger coverage though not involving reception, impact and significance. However, writing about War and Peace or Hamlet is substantively different than outlining the cultural references in an episode of Peep Show. The more applicable guideline here is WP:TRIVIA:

Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.

I'll later argue against that characterization but let's assume it for now. There are several guidelines on what process to take to resolve the problem:

  • This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
  • This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
  • This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

This appears to give strength to my argument that this section should not be removed even if deemed trivia. Next,

A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.

I've seen hundreds of trivia sections on WP that are completely unselective. I've edited several down to appropriate selections and in prose (see Lobotomy#Literary and cinematic portrayals and compare it to this older version's pop culture references [5]). I don't consider this page's section "unselective" as all of the items are directly related to the episode nor do I consider it disorganized.

You say "It's not Wikipedia's place to provide universal context for every single detail of all cultural material." Well, barring the slight hyperbole in "every single", I ask you, why not? I think the WP:NOT policy you are missing is WP:NOTPAPER. Although that is not an excuse for anything and everything and admittedly, the line that we are drawing is necessarily arbitrary as you point out, I believe that through a process of consensus, a mean can be found. Your viewpoint is from both an educated and a British point-of-view. I think that standard is too high and unnecessarily crimps the scope of the article. Possibly the inclusion of prossy, tranny and Stalin is too low. But explications of cultural references, particularly in those pages that involve popular media, are both common and useful. I do understand the standards of Wikipedia. Typically I author BLP political pages and rarely do I have less than 100 sources. I took on this exercise because, you must admit, there is a de facto lesser standard for inclusion than in BLP or scholarly or scientific articles. The content here is descriptive. Is it really fair to hang the standard of NOR because I note that Ashdown is, well, Ashdown? What is trivial to your ears is fascinating to mine. If you really loved an American show and it referenced Bob Packwood, wouldn't you find value in knowing that he was an American senator from years ago forced to resign because of sexual harrasment?

I do see that you are conceding that this information is valuable but that you argue that it doesn't belong here. My reading of Wikipedia as outlined above, both the letter and spirit, causes me to disagree. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for all those wonderful answers to my unexplained references! Yes, they do allow me to enjoy it that much more. Knowing what CND is makes that joke that much funnier! Now I get it. Even Marmite -- I couldn't understand what Sugar Hands said at all. But, yeah, OK, that one is minutia. But I like knowing. Just obsessive old me. You should see me studying Shakespeare -- only the Arden addition with its pages of footnotes makes me happy. ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the "selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme". I'm not convinced that "a list of slang and cultural references used in this episode" is particularly narrow, and I get the impression that most other episode articles are tending towards the narrower definition of "significant or repeated cultural references in this episode". It's encyclopaedic to summarise how a show deliberately echoes the entire plot of Hamlet, but it's unencyclopaedic to explain what a character meant when he made a single, one-line gibe about Hamlet.
I don't know who Bob Packwood is, and it would be encyclopaedically relevant to mention him when writing about a sitcom episode where he was heavily and repeatedly referenced. But I imagine most editors would regard it as redundant if you went through every sitcom episode that ever mentioned him, and explained what the character meant when they made each joke.
(And no, WP:NOR isn't too big a deal here, but it's bound to raise minor issues, such as your incorrectly-rationalised mishearing of "catering corps".) --McGeddon (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so that was it. Wish I had read it here first. ;) I don't characterize that as NOR, just wrong. No question that my work should be edited for errors (an editor just fixed the one you caught previously, tombola). I am guided by the call to be bold with the knowledge that there will be others to correct my errors.
You argue that a reference should not be used unless it is repeatedly referenced. But I don't see why such a high standard is required. That standard is not used on any of the pages I linked to above. Here is just a smattering (missing wikilinks):
  • Captain Hook - Lucille and Buster pretend that Buster's hook is part of a costume, referencing the villain from Peter Pan.
  • Bryan Adams - The song G.O.B. sings, "(Everything I Do) I Do It For You", was a hit for Bryan Adams.
  • Cruel Intentions - The American version of Dangerous Cousins ("Almost Cousins") features incestuous, non-biological cousins. This version of Dangerous Liaisons featured incestuous, non-biological siblings.
  • In "Damien", the lines "Go, Jesus!" and "Our Savior!" are used similarly.
  • The melody which plays while Jesus and Stan discuss the nature of prayer is the tune to the song "Onward, Christian Soldiers".
  • The boys read Women Who Run With the Wolves. This book also makes a small appearance in BASEketball, a film that both Trey Parker and Matt Stone starred in.
  • Apu says "My humble message of love has become a Valentine's Day Massacre."
  • The episode ends in a heart-shaped iris, à la Love, American Style.
Some of those are truly trivial, not providing any insight into the show's text. I don't agree that the majority of editors are heading towards such a rigorous standard as you are outlining. If this was the standard, 95% of television episode pages would be deleted (possibly The Simpsons would be the last to stand). Maybe you think that is a good idea. I think it would be a great loss to the project. I am fairly exclusionist in other parts of the project dealing with BLP and academic articles. But I shift to the inclusionist side in this neck of the woods.
What is the harm, exactly? "It's trivial". But that isn't excluded by policy. Trivia, in this case, is in the ears of the beholder. Although I do understand your point about references that are central to the theme of the episode, I agree that they should be moved to a meta-discussion section and that would improve the article tremendously. I plan to get there with these pages. But I see no harm in keeping the balance of non-central references in a later section as long as they are a) accurate and b) have some rational basis for why a class of readers may find it valuable. I selected not all references but those that first, the general audience may not understand (e.g., Gummo, Mailer), and then secondly those that the non-British audience may not understand. And I consider not my educational level and knowledge set as the standard, but I make judgments on a fuller spectrum of familiarity. Therefore, I do have a standard -- this isn't unselective or random or the totality of all references. This is not a paper encyclopedia. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've grouped the majority of the references thematically in prose as you suggested. ∴ Therefore | talk 00:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's much better; it's borderline WP:OR to draw particular themes together (I don't remember the Ian Curtis joke being intentionally related to suicide), but it certainly reads a lot more cleanly, and I think makes it more obvious which references are worth mentioning and which aren't.
The material left in the "references and idioms" section is more or less "British cultural references which a foreign audience might not fully understand", though, which I think we can lose - although a non-British audience would be interested in having these explained, it's not Wikipedia's job to do this. I imagine I'd get deservedly short shrift if I started editing American sitcom articles to explain references that a non-American viewer might not get ("The mention of George Michael's 'allowance' refers to the American term for pocket money", "The 'sub' that G.O.B. asks Michael for is an American term for a filled baguette, the name deriving from 'submarine'").
Trivia is specifically discouraged by policy; the harm it does is making articles difficult to read by breaking a useful article up with large lists of unimportant information. I know the nature of trivia is subjective, but that's an argument for finding a consensus here. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I'm still dying to know what Cesar Corrigan's thumb is -- c'mon, mock a Yankee, I can take it. ;) ∴ Therefore | talk 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a reference to pollice verso. --McGeddon (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)