Talk:My Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.
	This article is also under the scope of the BBC Sitcoms Task Force, a collaborative effort focusing on articles relating to BBC Sitcoms.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the BBC WikiProject.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC.

[edit] A couple of points...

The BBC and UKTV refuse to re-broadcast the series four episode 'Blind Justice' due to an upheld Ofcom complaint. Although no reason was given, it is likely that was considered offensive to blind people.

This is highly dubious. Ofcom don't, to my knowledge, uphold viewer complaints without giving a reason for doing so, and in fact they issue regular bulletins describing these reasons (see [1]). Also, simply upholding a viewer complaint does not necessarily mean that a programme may never be shown again.

By employing a wider number of writers to brainstorm jokes for each episode, the BBC has been able to maintain a consistent and relatively long-lived product without having to wait for a single writer to produce more material.

It's not clear how employing more writers is supposed to result in a more consistent product (I would have assumed the opposite if anything). 217.34.39.123 13:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening

Looks like it is time to bring this to Talk. The lead should be of good length and "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". Mentioning future series is a crucial part of this. Otherwise people will not know, and they should not have to search in episodes for it. All TV programmes should be "is", as if they still exist they should be in present tense. See WP:TENSE and this. I for my part apologise for not bringing this to talk earlier. It would have been a lot easier than us having an edit war. So I apologise for that, but I firmly believe future series are crucial in opening. In the same way as we would say when it finished airing, we should say when it will next air.--UpDown 15:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss here. You attitude now is getting very frustrating, you are presenting now arguments and seem unwilling to discuss. What part of "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" is unclear. Without future series, the lead is not capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. It is also logical to have it in the opening paragraph, before a description of the programme.--UpDown 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One paragraph is all I'll be writing here, since I've learned not to waste time trying to reason with article owners. The lead (as is) doesn't flow. How does mentioning a forthcoming series, followed by mentioning the show's creator in the same paragraph, make sense? I didn't move the forthcoming series information out of the lead, I just rearranged it. That aside, the link you proffered above doesn't state that forthcoming series should appear in the lead, only spin-offs, but apparently now it's "common sense" that it should. This is the reference mark to which I'll be pointing in my future edit summaries. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not pretend to own the article, but I do want it to look good. And your version didn't. Frankly I don't like the excuse "I've learned not to waste time trying to reason with article owners" - that is not an excuse to continue a edit war when a discussion has been started. I have changed the lead, and I hope this meets with your approval. You were correct that the Fred Barron sentence didn't particularly fit but I believe it does now. The link clearly says that the start and end airdate should be in the lead. My Family has not got an end date yet, so to make this clear we should say when the next series will air. Otherwise someone reading the lead has no idea whether its finished or not, and that is a breach of WP:LEAD (as quoted above).--UpDown 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I really should read what I write before pressing "Save page".--UpDown 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"programme"? i believe that all the articles should feature american english, as it is spoken by the majority of english-speaking people in the world - and quite so by people for whom english is a second language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.206 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How nice that you think that. Luckily Wikipedia is far more sensible than you are and use the English that is correct for the article, and in this it is UK English.--UpDown (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)