Talk:Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps

Backup characters

Im going to create pages for the back-up characters. JJH1992 12:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need separate pages for the minor characters. For the major character yes, but I think it's going a bit overboard doing it for the minor ones. Is there any real need? -- Halo2 ^Talk 22:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Series 7 info

Can someone (hopefully User:Gladboy who added the information) please provide a source of the series 7 information, and a source of the episode titles. Thanks -- Halo2 ^Talk 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the title lists, (as stated in previous edit summary), but kept "Series 7 confirmed". A source is still need for this though. -- Halo2 ^Talk 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Individual character articles

The articles for the individual characters are all restricted to a single paragraph. It would not lengthen this article appreciably to simply copy all the character articles into their own sections in this article. In addition to making the character information easier to find (a reader would no longer have to click through to ten individual articles), at least some of the character articles show up as unwatched pages, meaning they are at increased vulnerability to vandalism. Lyrl^Talk _C 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It used to be like that, until someone changed it all, including the minor characters (see above topic). I'll change it back tonight, and try and get pictures too. -- Halo2 ^Talk 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged them - hopefully this will work out until the character descriptions are expanded enough to need their own article. Lyrl^Talk _C 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The article needs some expanding... I think

I think the article lacks a section about the plot of the series, some kind of summary for each one of the 6 series, and maybe a separate article for the characters (both main and secondary ones, only in one article), with pictures on it. Also a section about the DVDs releases don't hurt I think.
By the way, isn't the title of the show Two Pints of Lager (and a Packet of Crisps) instead of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps (the brackets are missing).

In summary:

• A synopses for each one of the 6 series;
• A separate article for the characters;
• An expanded DVDs releases section;
• A change in the shows name to include the brackets.

Cheat.2.Win 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that really right with the brackets? The main logo has no brackets and I cannot find any brackets on the BBC website. I guess if you want to be really pernickety, you could replace the "and" with "&", but even then I've seen it written both ways. CC 26 Aug2007 9:08amGMT

In the IMDb it takes the brackets Two Pints of Lager (And a Packet of Crisps), but after all, I think you're right, and as you said the "and" instead of the "&" is used more often, so it maybe be better to leave it like it is at the moment. Oh... and I'm working on the article/articles at the moment, so maybe the changes I've suggested may be done by myself. Cheat.2.Win 08:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How could you do a series 1 synopsis? All the plot gets resolved at the end each episode in series 1 so it would just be a description of every episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.69.159 (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralf's left

Someone update all the other two pints articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeipedia (talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

since when, I never heard about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.138.141 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Oh right on this morning, are they are getting in another actor or writing him out?

Please cite a source (there will be one somewhere) and edit the article. But if it's true, do you really think they'd replace the actor...? How would they explain it... -- Halo2 ^Talk 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They'd just ignore the fact he'd look different same as every other time an actor is replaced. Can't find a source--84.70.112.64 16:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

the wouldn't re-cast the role, as its become iconic in british sitcoms, he'd be written out somehow, if the next 1 will definatly be the final 1 perhapse he'll be killed off. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Still can't find a source, not even on the official website Have they 100% ruled out another series after the upcoming one, because if not I would guess they wouldn't kill him off incase they do another series in future and Ralf is available to be in it--84.70.108.226 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to see it get filmed, and he has been killed off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.21.37 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's astonishing, for an episode that was broadcast live on 13th January 2008. But your personal experiences are not a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy. It's called original research and is a big no-no. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the episode was filmed live, not broadcast live. U-Mos (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"the wouldn't re-cast the role, as its become iconic in british sitcoms" - This quote is funnier than every episode of 2 pints put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.117.67 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Series 7

Ok, Jonny has gone. That is no reason to move him out of the cast list, because as a fictional character, he still exists in series 1 to 6. It's just that they're not being broadcast at present. An encyclopedia article shouldn't be confused with a blog, or real life. Unless anyone can make a case, based on Wikipedia policy or precedent for doing this, he has to stay. I've taken advice from the WP:Television project, and they don't do that. Neither should we. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Title sequence - worth mentioning?

The titles used in series 7 are the same as in series 6 (I assume, as I actually managed to miss the entire sixth series), and so still prominently feature Ralf as Jonny. Is that notable? U-Mos (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, just cheapskatery, I guess. Can't see what purpose there is in mentioning it, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Specials

I'd like to resolve the problems categorising episodes in a formal way. Reverting edits repeatedly doesn't help matters and the hidden messages aren't a good way of gaining a concensus. If we gain a concensus here, referring to it in the hidden message should be sufficient.

This is my two penny worth, feel free to agree or disagree; To begin with, the word 'episode' can be accurately used to describe every production made in the whole series. There is no ambiguity with this word and because a production is different in some way to the average one does not make it any less an episode. There are currently 63 episodes of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. A special is, amongst other things, an episode which either appears outside of a normal series run, is either shorter or longer than the average episode, or does something 'special' that makes it stand out from the rest such as lampooning horror movies. There are 3 episodes that fall into this category.

1. When Janet Met Jonny - A Christmas special which was broadcast seperately from the rest of the series which lampooned music videos.
2. When Janet Killed Jonny - Homage to horror movies and didn't advance the normal plotline.
3. When Jonny Met Sharky - Live episode (actually referenced by Susan Nickson in the Outtakes show as a special).

You could also throw the outtakes shows (which I believe there are more than one) into the category of specials, however this is a whole different discussion. In my humble opinion, the field in the infobox should actually say: No. of episodes 63 including 3 specials.

On the other hand however, most other articles about sitcoms do not make reference to specials in the infobox, simply giving an episode count which includes them. For uniformity should we not do the same here?

Comments below please. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:Television episodes doesn't actually define an episode (probably because it's felt unnecessary to do so), we have to look elsewhere. My Concise Oxford has it as

incidental narrative or series of events forming digresssion in poem etc; incident in narrative, part of serial story; incident, event viewed as part of sequence; (Mus)... (irrelevant)

The bolded words are problematical for our purpose and therefore make use of those sub-definitions unhelpful. So we are left with "incident in narrative; part of serial story". The former case, in our context, would apply, for example, to the scene of Jonny's shooting; the latter applies more generally and I submit it as the only plausible interpretation usable within the context of a television programme. The test, therefore is whether it forms part of the narrative.

• "When Janet Met Jonny" is therefore excluded as an episode as it is an interpolated "prequel" and has never been listed by the BBC within the episode list of any series; if it had its proper place in the overall narrative structure, it would have been Episode 1 of Series 1. This extraneity is highlighted by its presentation as a sequence of, essentially, music videos.
• "When Jonny Met Sharky" is therefore included as it is not only part of the narrative sequence, but a vital part without which most of the events in series 7 would be inexplicable, and the only thing that takes it out of the ordinary towards being "special" (but not "a special") is its recording live, which given the history of television is not that unusual.
• "When Janet Killed Jonny" is slightly more problematical, because we come up against that old bane of writing about fiction, canonicity. On the purely functional side, we have it as episode 10 of series 6, according to the BBC; we also having its narrative (at least initially) following on from the closure of the Archer in "Closing Time". Against, we have its wildly unreal nature and its ambiguous ending. Dream or not? Well, we just don't know. Given the lack of a reliable source for this, we must fall back on something, and my preference is to regard it as a bit like the "Last Night of the Proms"- part of the series, but different as it slightly blurs the usual format.

That's my take on it, anyway. Oh, and "something 'special' that makes it stand out from the rest such as lampooning horror movies" seems to be begging the question. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the BBC aren't particularly good at documenting episodes on their various websites, I think their exclusion of 'When Janet Met Jonny' is simply because it doesn't belong to a series, so doesn't fit within the series lists they've set up. Actually the episode does in fact follow on from the end of Schluballybub After walking out the door, Janet stops for a cigarette and then pulls out a photograph of herself and Jonny. That's where the flashback begins. The flashback ends at the point the same photograph was taken by Louise. Still staring at the photograph, Janet reflects on what she's remembered and (in voice over) sings the question "should I stay or should I go". So this episode cannot be a prequal as it's topped and tailed with the storyline as it was at the end of series 3. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC) ADDENDUM: I really appreciate and respect your response, but I am confused by your statement about begging the question. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just that there is an implicit assumption in the proposition that "lampooning horror movies" makes it "a special". Not that important, but I feel we need diverse input from other editors here. I suggest leaving it for a day or so, then perhaps seeking a third opinion, possibly from a TV project member. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for the misunderstanding but I wasn't trying to imply that it was a special just because it lampooned horror movies. More the fact that it became a horror story (as a nod/send up of the genre) rather than following the usual narrative or format of the show. I agree it wasn't made that clear above. I agree a third opinion would be helpful. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that When Janet Met Jonny was transmitted outside of the runs of the series either side of it, so coupled with its contents is indisputably a "special". The other two putative specials were shown within their series runs, but while one is clearly a separate and fantastical branching off from the whole series' narrative, the other is an integral part of that narrative. To be honest, despite the direct references by Nickson et al to it as a "special," it's hard to justify categorising as such in the same way as the other two episodes. We should also note that ER treats that series' live episode as notable, but it is not singled out as a "special". Nick Cooper (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you regard When Janet Met Jonny as an 'episode' (albiet a special one) and include it in the episode count? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think really we should just list "X episodes" in the infobox and not refer to "specials" there. For comparison consider A Very Peculiar Practice; two series of 7 episodes each, plus a later one-off "special" - the infobox lists just "15 episodes". I know some other pages for comedies (e.g. The New Statesman, Blackadder, etc.) do list "specials", but in those instances the demarcation is far more clear. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So "No. of episodes 62 and 1 special" would be come "No. of episodes 63", do we all agree to this? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Was series 7 confirmed as the last series?

Or was that just rumoured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.80.251 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been said. Best wait & see. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

nope a new season is in full —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meluke19k3 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Series 7 - table of results

Position in BBC THREE's ratings - Can this be clarified, what does it mean exactly ? Cheers --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also needs a source, otherwise it must go. And it's a bit strange to have these figures for only one Series. Are there others? And wouldn't it be beter merged into the Episode list as a separate columns, since there is little additional info in this table? --Rodhullandemu 15:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remove that section of the table, not only is it unsourced but i have no idea what its trying to say, what are the position numbers in reference to? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it's up to the editor to justify, and this hasn't happened, it's gone until it's soured reliably. --Rodhullandemu 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure i might work on this article in the summer, this is one of my favourite programs. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Starring" in the infobox

It only makes any sense to have the five main characters here; all others are supporting and in fact, in the List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps characters only they are "Main characters". --Rodhullandemu 17:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see this issue has come up again. The first observation I would make is that it is most certainly relevent to note in the infobox that Ralf Little was in Series 1-6, i.e. not in Series 7. Secondly, Gell received fifth place billing - i.e. immediately after Casey, Drysdale, Mellor, and Smith - in episodes 1-4 of that Season, and sixth place billing in episodes 5-8. Oakes received sixth place billing in episodes 3 & 4, and fifth place billing in episodes 5-8. Furthermore, Oakes features in the title sequence of episodes 5-8, replacing part of the previous longer shot of Drysdale. It seems that circumstantially Oakes at leascontrast was regarded as being on a part with the previous leads. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Come up", much like a wart or verucca that you'd think would have been long gone. Our starting point here is WP:MOS#FICT - writing about fiction. Paradoxically, when writing about characters in fiction (in the real world), they don't die, because they didn't exist to begin with. You try telling that to some of the unwitting editors of Torchwood. We have the same issue here. Points one by one:

1. Infobox: {{Infobox Television}} is silent on the "starring" field; nevertheless, Ralf Little starred in Series 1 - 6, and the infobox for any article is intended to set forth broad information rather than detail; if an enquiring reader really wants to know when Little was starring, er, that's why we have the article. Having it in the infobox is contrary to WP:MOS#FICTION
2. "Starring": This would require a reliable source such as the BBC; relative billing constitutes original research. You have to realise that billing in programme credits is not only predicated by the importance of the role portrayed, but is also influenced by the agents of the actors involved (or, at least used to be), so to reading anything much into that is an act of purist optimism.
3. Characters generally: Almost any mainstream analysis of this series would concede that it revolves around five main characters, who all appear in every episode. It follows that the actors portraying the principal characters are "stars" (whatever that means). There are less substantial supporting characters (Flo Henshaw, Munch Wilkinson) whose dramatic purpose is to provide reaction, support, and foil, to the five main characters, but that does not make their actors into stars with respect to this programme.

I think that's all that needs to be said. --Rodhullandemu 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that your observations constuitute "original research" far than a commonsense observation about Oakes's placing in the credits and title sequence of Series 7. Not to mention a commonsense observation that programmes can evolve and are not stuck in the static mold of how they began. We'll see if/when we get a Series 7.... Nick Cooper (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, "commonsense" is also original research, whereas I'm going by the BBC "Two Pints" homepage which some might think is a reliable source. As for appearing in the title credits, a tortoise appears in the title credits for "One Foot in the Grave", but I don't see a credit for it, least of all as a star of the show. If you're going to argue that Lee Oakes is "starring", it make no sense not to argue that Hayley Bishop is also "starring", because she appeared in two more episodes than Oakes. However, the BBC have never given either as much prominence as the five main characters, and I've never seen them listed as "starring". Therefore, they ain't. --Rodhullandemu 11:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, commonsense is not original research, if it is making an observation about something that is self-evident. Your comparison between Oakes and Bishop is flawed, as we're not talking about appearances, but rather the role Oakes and - to a lesser extent - Gells played in Series 7. One would note, for example, that on the same BBC website there is a picture of both of them plus the four original leads tagged as "Two Pints cast". This same picture appears on the cover of the Series 7 DVD. Furthermore, the back cover of the Series 7 DVD include Gells and Oakes under the "starring" billing. This is in contrast to all previous single series and box-set releases, which only featured the main five on the front cover. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What is claimed to pass for "commonsense" varies so much between individuals that I don't think it's of much value to rely on it as a source. Some might say it's commonsense that Margaret Thatcher was a great Prime Minister; others would beg to differ. I disagree that it's self-evident, because even by your account the BBC is inconsistent and for us to resolve that ourselves constitutes original research, pure and simple. But this is a problem with long-running series anyway; "starring" changes over time. In "Coronation Street", for example, forty years ago you could have put Violet Carson in the "starring" section, but not now. This is highlighting a weakness of the infobox anyway, in that it's geared towards the programme (which never listed Oakes or Gell as starring), as against a commercial packaging of it (which I accept does, within limits). I suggest that it's against the spirit of the infobox to list such as "Series 7, DVD only", that's just clutter, and I remain unconvinced that Oakes and Gell should be listed as "starring", because the infobox should refers to the programme as a whole and not just one series of it. --Rodhullandemu 13:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be an opinion to say that to say that Thatcher was a "great Prime Minister"; it would be commonsense to observe that she has a tendency to wear blue. As for your latest comments, I would observe that of course the programme "never listed Oakes or Gell as starring" but then the same applies to the main five/four leads, as well, since there is no "starring" billing or separation in the title sequence, or in the credits, only that they appear in the former and are listed first in the latter. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• outdent. So as I see it, the situation is that we have no reliable source for anyone starring, because the BBC itself is inconsistent when it's not silent, and to argue from a DVD billing for one series only would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Accordingly, I propose that we leave the "starring" in the infobox blank because we can't reliably source it, and leave the five main characters listed as such in the body of the article, because we can source that either from IMDb (or) by reference to the relative number of episodes they appear in. And everybody's happy. --Rodhullandemu 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reaction

Isn't it normal to have a section on critical response and ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.228.211 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Only managed to find figures for Series 6, Episode 1 ("When Jonny Met Sharky"), and they are set out in the list of episodes. --Rodhullandemu 11:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't critics absolutely hate this show? It must be notable as one of the most derided comedy show of recent times. I think the critical dislike is unanimous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.198.174 (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What?

In 2007, a seventh series was commissioned. Speculation began after the showing of the last episode in series six, which led many people to believe the characters have been killed off.

Eh? 80.195.146.94 (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary unsourced cruft. Gone. --Rodhullandemu 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of BARB ratings

Removed; any information here has to be verifiable. A bare link to the BARB website does not satisfy that criterion, and my understanding is that a paid subscription is required to access this information. Sorry, that doesn't work here. If the same information can be acquired from elsewhere, fine, otherwise it fails one of our core policies. --Rodhullandemu 21:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it here while it's being worked on, but I think it unlikely we'll get rankings:

Series	Premiere	Finale	Viewers
1	February 26 2001	April 2 2001	2.9m
2	April 15 2002	May 20 2002	1.8m
3	February 23 2003	April 27 2003	2.6m
4	February 15 2004	April 2004	TBA
5	January 2 2005	April 3 2005	TBA
6	February 26 2006	April 30 2006	642,800
7	January 13 2008	March 9 2008	806,000 + 291,000

Writing about fiction

Taking WP:MOSFICT as our starting point, all Two Pints-related articles should be written from an "out of universe" perspective; this means (1) we write an overview of the whole programme and (2) do not just rewrite the articles to reflect the current position. In particular (1) Jonny is a major character throughout six of the eight series (2) Timothy Claypole, overall, has so far had fewer appearances than Floella Henshaw, Munch or Kelly the Barmaid, so writing "out of universe" means that he is NOT a main character. Neither is Wesley. That's the way it is. Arguments based on what "other articles do" just shows how poorly they are written. --Rodhullandemu 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So how do you account for both Tim and Wesley appearing in the title sequence of the last series? Your continued ideological objection to both is as incongruous as omitting David Tennant from the Doctor Who page would be. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

End of the show

I believe that the page should be edited to reflect the fact that Two Pints will not be returning. The Two Pints website is no longer being updated, which to me suggests the show ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.87.56 (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The British Comedy Guide, which is normally very reliable in these things, is saying that there will be another series of the show... so its likely that it hasn't actually ended! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.147.109 (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the OP's last sentence: the Two Pints website hasn't been updated since the end of Series Seven. 80.177.217.162 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

I've removed this because it breached out neutrality policy. It started by saying "Two Pints has polarized opinion"- which is itself unsourced, but would imply critics have been either highly enthusiastic or highly opposed. The section then cited only two sources, one of them not very reliable, in support of the latter camp, and the proposition that Two Pints is "generally panned by critics". Sorry, but two sources only can not support such a broad statement, I suggest that if this section is to be replaced, it becomes more balanced and better-sourced, unless there are really no commentators who have praised Two Pints. Rodhullandemu 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it's evident that there is fairly wide spread criticism of the show, I shall update the criticism section to include references from all the major UK newspapers, both good and bad. You are failing to be neutral in this matter by disregarding any criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.109.201 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am applying our neutrality policy. If you think that policy inadequate, please make a proposal to change it here. Rodhullandemu 17:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are using the NPOV defence, then how come there's millions of articles on wikipedia with a Criticism section? Face it, some people don't like this show and it's relevant to have that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.109.201 (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPOV? Criticism sections are fine, as long as they are balanced, fair and supported by reliable sources. As already pointed out, this section (which I have removed again) fails by being overwhelmingly negative, and poorly-sourced. I also advise you read this rather than repeatedly replacing the section without providing proper sourcing and a balanced analysis rather than your own viewpoint. If the balance of sources turns out to be negative, that's what we go with, as long as we do so within the rules. Rodhullandemu 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, if I provide the negative, can you provide the positive? Because I'm having trouble finding reputable positive reviews, hence why all the negative ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.109.201 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"First/second run"

Is there actually any justification for what seems to be a completely arbitrary split between the 2006 and 2008 series in separate "runs"? Nick Cooper (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I believe so yes. The first run was the original one, the second one is minus Johnny and returns after a years break and the third run sees the show "refreshed" with major cast changes and the exit of creator Susan Nickson. Also, its a common reference between fans that the "original" series with Johnny was the best - hence a verbal reference to the spilt in the shows run. User:AndrewD1992 22:58, 6 February 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewND1992 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but there are plenty of series where you could make that sort of arbitrary distinction, based on major cast changes, an apparent longer break in production, etc., but commonly no such separation is claimed. Just about the only exception is Skins, but there the changes are obviously far more radical that merely Ralph Little leaving, and more importantly are clearly defined by the producers in the way that they are (i.e. First generation, Second Generation, etc.). What some Two Pints fans may think is neither here nor there. Unless someone can come up with clear evidence that the BBC itself divides the series in the same manner, we shouldn't be doing so. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Riananthonysmith, 9 May 2011

i would wish to edit some small changes to the article that need updating.

Riananthonysmith (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Note User:Riananthonysmith has been blocked as a sock account; they are the reason this article has to be semi-protected in the first place. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rianwiki92, 24 May 2011

i feel the page needs updating such as the news that creator and writer susan nickson left the series in 2009 and also the episode count has not yet been updated. Rianwiki92 (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a source for this? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done - the request comes from yet another sock account of Rian13. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.4.172.205, 24 May 2011

The first episode of season seven was broadcast live with many little nods to the fact that they were on live such as Janet saying she had just been 'watching BBC 3 and you would not believe what i saw' or mentioning the exact time until the show after them.

86.4.172.205 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.218.208.174, 26 May 2011

The article needs updating the episode count has not been updated or the status of the show which has now ended. 90.218.208.174 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. Variants of this request have been previously denied. Please provide a reference to a reliable source. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing...

I didn't get the info I came here for. The 'Plot' section is in fact a (too long, IMHO) description of the development of the series. I think a short summary is needed, covering the following:

• who are the 'five twentysomethings' mentioned in the lead? Name, relationships with one another, character traits, roles in the stories?
• where does the action take place (I'm guessing it's a pub - called what? where, what kind? If not a pub, then where?)
• what style of comedy is it? character-driven, trad-sitcom, puns & one-liners, comedy-drama?

Anyone wanting to add this could look at the Peep Show (TV series), where this kind of info is provided for that series. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates needed and end of series confirmation

I feel the pages needs some updating i have taken note of the plot which i can make more clear for readers to get a sense of what the show is a about, also minor updates need to be changed to the characters episode count. I have all reliable sources for the information i will be adding and all sources will be added if i get a chance to update the page. I also have conformation that the series has in fact ended and will not be returning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twopintsfan (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you do have WP:RS for it, go ahead. Not that I've seen/heard anything reporting that the show's been cancelled. U-Mos (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Note Twopintsfan account was blocked as yet another sock of Rian13. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Cancellation confirmed here. 212.137.36.230 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The cancellation has already been noted in the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

The co-ordinates for Brindley Autos is in the North Sea! It'd be nice if someone could address this.

—86.1.229.216 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done — I've checked it through several different mapping apps and all seem to point to the same place on Brindley Street. You might repost this request with more information about what steps you're taking which cause you to end up in the North Sea. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100217101128/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/showsandtours/shows/two_pints to http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/shows/two_pints

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070821033057/http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/t/twopintsoflagera_66603590.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/t/twopintsoflagera_66603590.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Splodgenessabounds

With a title like that, which was obviously suggested by the song, could it have been anything other than the aforementioned cheapskatery (i.e., extreme reluctance to pay a royalty every time the title credits rolled) which possessed the BBC not to use the theme by Splodge; instead of the frankly substandard one they did choose? Nuttyskin (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)