Talk:This Time with Alan Partridge

Background

The Alan Partridge article covers the character history. It isn't relevant here. Popcornduff (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a summary and cited. The information is perfectly relevant and useful. Szzuk (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it's missing citations. "He becomes a radio host, with appearances that include television series I'm Alan Partridge, web series Mid Morning Matters with Alan Partridge, and feature film Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa." has no citation.

Second, no, it isn't relevant. This article is about a TV series. It doesn't need to summarise the history of the character. It doesn't shed any light on the TV show. I don't know how else to explain this. Popcornduff (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The character Alan Partridge spans a number of shows and is more notable than this particular show. This information is ably demonstrated to readers in the section you deleted. Szzuk (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"more notable than this particular show"... yes... That's why the character has its own article to explain all that stuff. It isn't needed here. Popcornduff (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Look at MOS:TVPRODUCTION. This describes what a background section should cover - such as "the development of a series, season, or episode, such as what lead to its creation, production entities behind the project, as well as its format". Nothing in this background section covers that. Popcornduff (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

What we do need is WP:Consensus, to see if the information should be be deleted or not. Szzuk (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff and Szzuk: I think that some background information on the character is necessary, but as it stands I believe that it's too much. I'd cut the section to a paragraph, start focusing on how this show came about. Is this okay? MikeOwen ^discuss 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy for things to be trimmed/re-weighted (it was a quick and dirty edit), however this article should be written for someone who has no knowledge of Alan Partridge without them needing to read the full character article. Partridge's history and character flaws from previous series are not isolated from the current series -- he's back on the BBC after an extended period languishing in regional radio, and (unsurprisingly) has a chip on his shoulder. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Guys, forgive me, but... I think you're all missing the point. The article should provide enough information about the character history to make sense of the show, but this should be tied directly to the subject of the article. The fact that "Armando Iannucci, Patrick Marber, Richard Herring and Stewart Lee wrote much of Partridge's first material" is not relevant to This Time With Alan Partridge.

We don't need a section providing a potted history of Alan Partridge. For example, the Simpsons Movie article (which is FA) has no section summarising the history of the Simpsons characters, and the OK Computer article (also FA) has no section summarising the history of the band Radiohead. I'm going to rewrite the article soon to hopefully demonstrate what I'm talking about. Popcornduff (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mixed reviews

A couple of refs have been added saying the show has had "mixed reviews" to the lead. The first ref appears to be giving a meta review but does no such thing, using it to support that statement is misleading and simply WP:OR. The second ref from Rotten Tomatoes says there is no consensus as of yet - but it is being used to support a meta result of "mixed reviews". Rotten tomatoes so far is giving 11+ and 4- reviews which typically results in "generally favourable". I suggest we move to "generally favourable" while something more definite comes to light. Szzuk (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It was me that added that, previously it said it had received "positive" reviews, which I thought was misrepresentative of the whole picture. Probably be outvoted, but I would suggest that we try and make the description of the reviews objective, as wikipedia should not be a fanzine Jopal22 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Saying it has "mixed reviews" is an unsourced personal interpretation of the reviews. We're not including it. Popcornduff (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I've switched it to generably favourable. On Rotten Tomatoes the good to bad is in a ratio of 3:1, so I've added a bad review to the reception section here, it too is now in the ratio of 3:1. Szzuk (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, think that's fair. Jopal22 (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue use of Piers Morgan

The article references Piers Morgan. He is a tabloid journalist and many of his comments need deleting per WP:Tabloid. Comments like "Television host and former newspaper editor Piers Morgan, who is spoofed by This Time, said that "Steve Coogan is trying to exact revenge on me because he now hates everything to do with newspapers... I used to love Alan Partridge, he used to be hilarious, brilliant. It is now utterly unwatchable. Because Coogan has disappeared up his derrière, unfortunately." are the definition of Tabloid. The fact that the source Digital Spy is reputable is irrelevant. This article is including throw away Tabloid remarks from a Tabloid journalist like they are encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Also the less we give merit to what Piers Morgan says the better as far as I am concerned. <personal attack removed> Jopal22 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see how Morgan's response to a show which openly spoofs him - according to one of its own production team - is unacceptable. If so, there should not have been a reference to Morgan already in the article. That seems blatantly unfair to me. Rodericksilly (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Two brief mentions of Morgan are hardly overdoing it. It's not as if the references to him in the article are likely to enhance his reputation. Stroness (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)