Talk:Come Fly with Me (2010 TV series)

Episode 1

Do we really need such a detailed transcript? If this happens for each episode the article will be insanely long. If it's felt to be needed, then perhaps each episode requires its own page MrMarmite (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I've edited it back a lot to what I think is a good base to start. As the series plays recurring characters should be given more detailed profiles while minor characters should be given briefer profiles but more presendence in the plot section. I'm not sure individual episode pages will be warrented at all here but a series page and character page will probably be a good idea at some point. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As more shows are aired, it might be good to start a separate article for episode rundowns, like "Come Fly with Me (Series one)". LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We should only do that if this gets sufficiently big that it needs to be split per WP:SIZE, until then, keep it in the one article. And if it does, it should be named Come Fly with Me (series 1) per WP:TVNC. Mhiji 15:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And versus ampersand (&)

I've done a general copy-edit of the article, and removed a number of appearances of the ampersand when the word 'and' should be used. Despite common practice in text messaging, an ampersand is not a 1-to-1 substitute for the word and. Instead, it implies collaboration, and should be used only to signify this relationship; when describing a couple as well as identifying a pair of characters played by Walliams and Lucas, the word and is always appropriate; the ampersand implies both actors are playing both characters. Drmargi (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Reid and Peter & Judith

Why was Tommy put in additional characters? Reading the BBC's description he will be in episode 3&4 as well, so I have moved him to main characters. Does anybody object to this? Thomas888b (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like sound logic to me. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Thomas888b (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Done the same for Peter and Judith as they are recurring characters.Thomas888b (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I put them in the episode description based on the information available at the time. If they're recurring, then by all means, move them. Drmargi (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, that seems logical, as we didn't know who would be main characters 86.137.250.113 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Soundtrack

Any information about the soundtrack used would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.204.180 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute on page

On the page there is a dispute about the neutrality of the section, and to see the talk page to find out more. Seeing as it isn't actually being disputed shouldn't the notice be removed? 90.199.105.58 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• 90.199.105.58 is my IP Thomas888b (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd take it off if you think it's inappropriate. The neutrality issue was probably more about a couple attempts to remove the criticism of the show, which would call neutrality into question. The content there is balanced and adequately sourced, and since the editor tagging the section didn't bother to initiate a discussion, I see no reason to leave the tag there if it strikes you as inappropriate. Drmargi (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not there any more and hasn't been for the last 2 days. I was the one who initially added it and later removed it as the wording is better now - it wasn't balanced and adequately sourced originally but it's fine now. Mhiji 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that after the fact, when I buzzed through the last couple days' edits. Oh, well. Drmargi (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Thomas888b (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't look balanced in the slightest. You have two references to negative reviews, followed by a comment about reduced ratings. Any person would assume a negative bias on this article. Oh, and issues of complaints and racism. These comments aren't bad in themselves, they just need some semblance of balance. N-Denizen (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe that is because there are no positive reviews? Thomas888b (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DVD release

The section entitled DVD release seems very vague. Maybe change it to DVD, and include lots of detail about the dvd? Thomas888b (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for viewing figures

Is Digital Spy considered a reliable source? I began using it for the series' viewing figures. If not, could someone add sources to them? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Matt and David "split"

Just a pre-emptive note to anyone thinking the second series has been cancelled thanks to this article. Firstly, it's a tabloid story reporting (or creating, if you want to be cynical) a rumour. Secondly, the split has been denied not once but twice by Lucas himself on twitter. So that leaves us with no evidence that the second series of Come Fly is not going ahead. U-Mos (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I fear this will be a problem -- Come Fly with Me begins its run on BBC America on Saturday, and Americans won't be familiar enough with the British media to know what is trustworthy and what's not, as a rule. Consequently, I can see this going in and out of the article, unless folks pa attention to this page. I'm a American who's spent considerable time in London, and still wasn't sure enough of whether I could trust the Sun to judge the reliability of the source. The Mirror is reporting Lucas' comments as well [1], so the so-called break-up (interesting they chose a term more typically associated with romantic relationships) is clearly a hoax, or someone's assumptions. (I fixed your link -- hope that's OK!) Drmargi (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tabloids are generally a tricky area, but in showbiz terms they are often reporting on nothing more than rumours or assumptions, as was the case here. The Mirror article is obviously reporting something that actually happened, and so with the two the saga is citable. But notable? Not for this article, as it doesn't actually give us any new info on a second series. U-Mos (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Second series

This article has multiple and conflicting information regarding the second series. Perhaps all such information should be replaced with one which is referenced by the BBC MrMarmite (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

good idea, as considering it is now june 2012 and a second series hasnt even entered production yet, i doubt it will air in autumn 2012 Frogkermit (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

also if a facebook account really a reliable souce for the airdate of the second series, as it is probably just a fan page and even states paul and barry chuckle are going to be in the series Frogkermit (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Come Fly with Me (2010 TV series). 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/20110912210619/http://press.bbcamerica.com:80/program.jsp?id=30190 to http://press.bbcamerica.com/program.jsp?id=30190

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} 06:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Come Fly with Me (2010 TV series). 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/20120331061028/http://shop.abc.net.au/products/come-fly-with-me-with-magnets-exclusive-to-abc to http://shop.abc.net.au/products/come-fly-with-me-with-magnets-exclusive-to-abc

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) 05:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)