This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coupling (British TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actually, Coupling has not finished in the UK. Series 4 is about to go into pre-production as we speak!
Who has described it as "the funniest thing since Red Dwarf". Is it an informed opinion?(I'd doubt it); and does their opinion matter? My opinion is that it is NOT, and my opinion doesn't matter either. Mintguy 11:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've updated the article mentioning that Coupling may return to the BBC in 2004. I've read speculation on this from various sources, but I can't find anything up to date that definitively says that a fourth season will be filmed. Anyone have a reliable source? I've also read that Jeff (Richard Coyle) may not be returning for the fourth season due to scheduling conflicts. - wonko 00:10, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
Removed that bit about it beeing the funniest thing since Red Dwarf because thats completely POV and irelevant. Saul Taylor 09:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
!! unfortunately this great series is over, Jeff murdoch left the show at the end of season 3 and never made a reentry and this made the producers add a new character called oliver.... well!!! was not that funny and it is safe to say that this great show ended!!!!!!!!!
Does anybody know a good comprehensive site with quotes from the series? The oficial ones are woefully lacking... -- Malyctenar 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to list every station on which the show has aired. Comments? Xiner ( talk, email) 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason why the short article on the US version shouldn't be merged into the short article on the UK version. WindsorFan 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Link removed under WP:EL "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article."...
...and because the link isn't working (getting a 404 error)...
-- Berean Hunter ( talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Coupling.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The post-series story section appears to be in dispute. See the comment from an annonymous user on User talk:The JPS#Coupling.
The JPS, can I ask you to please clarify why you believe that this is copyvio? -- Deadly∀ssassin 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your explanation simply doesn't float with me. It smacks of bureaucratic dogma, hiding behind policy and status. I couldn't care less if it wouldn't pass a peer review if you and EyeSerene are these supposed "peers." Information should be shared. This ending to the show, written by Moffat himself should be shared. Your strict adherence to meaningless and arbitrary policies is beyond foolish and beyond inflexible, in my opinion. In my eyes, all you have achieved here is to disfigure this article.
However, I realize I cannot change this, as I don't have the time or the inclination to make it my task in life to make sure Wikipedia meets some stuffy set of parameters. You can. So, I guess we at the Doctor Who Forums will be the only ones to get the complete story. Sad. I'll make sure Mr. Moffat knows. Maybe he can get it out there some other way. Clearly we can't expect Wikipedia to actually be complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.29.59 ( talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(please excuse my bad English)
Since I am a fan of the series, I may not be entirely objective to what can be read in this article. But I don't understand why all of the characters are described in such diminishing words, together with the whole series. The relation to Seinfeld is just mentioned and yet the parallell is obvious; if you are not able to relate to these everyday single life frustration, you are not able to understand the humour.
Comparing it with Friends is unfair. The only thing it has in common with Friends is that there are 6 main characters. The characters of Friends are way too prude. There are no obvious parallels between the characters, and there is the age difference.
What I miss - and what I considder as central in the series are the different philosophies if the men in the series, and to some extent the women, too. The basis of the series is the dialogue, the endless discussions of how men could understand women och vice versa. The lengthy and untraditional, but often rather intelligent observations of many aspects of life has been narrowed down to (in the case of Jeff) "constant sexual frustration, ridiculous stories and fantasies about women and sex". Those kind of comments could hardly be considered as objective.
The central place in the series is the pub - I would estimate 30-40% of the time of the series is spent in this pub (including entire episodes), and it is not even mentioned in the article. It is here where the different aspects of life are being discussed, and where most of the action begins or ends and sometimes even takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.172.131 ( talk) 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Unlike most American adaptations, this show was intended to be a word-for-word duplicate of the British version,"
i don't think this is a true statement, many american shows have been based around or completely copied from brittish tv, and very very often, at least the first episode or pilot has been a word for word copy, i think the office was, and i can recall hearing of others that are the same but i can't give them as examples, perhaps should be looked at-- 81.23.56.12 ( talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Coupling (UK 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coupling (British TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actually, Coupling has not finished in the UK. Series 4 is about to go into pre-production as we speak!
Who has described it as "the funniest thing since Red Dwarf". Is it an informed opinion?(I'd doubt it); and does their opinion matter? My opinion is that it is NOT, and my opinion doesn't matter either. Mintguy 11:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've updated the article mentioning that Coupling may return to the BBC in 2004. I've read speculation on this from various sources, but I can't find anything up to date that definitively says that a fourth season will be filmed. Anyone have a reliable source? I've also read that Jeff (Richard Coyle) may not be returning for the fourth season due to scheduling conflicts. - wonko 00:10, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
Removed that bit about it beeing the funniest thing since Red Dwarf because thats completely POV and irelevant. Saul Taylor 09:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
!! unfortunately this great series is over, Jeff murdoch left the show at the end of season 3 and never made a reentry and this made the producers add a new character called oliver.... well!!! was not that funny and it is safe to say that this great show ended!!!!!!!!!
Does anybody know a good comprehensive site with quotes from the series? The oficial ones are woefully lacking... -- Malyctenar 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to list every station on which the show has aired. Comments? Xiner ( talk, email) 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason why the short article on the US version shouldn't be merged into the short article on the UK version. WindsorFan 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Link removed under WP:EL "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article."...
...and because the link isn't working (getting a 404 error)...
-- Berean Hunter ( talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Coupling.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The post-series story section appears to be in dispute. See the comment from an annonymous user on User talk:The JPS#Coupling.
The JPS, can I ask you to please clarify why you believe that this is copyvio? -- Deadly∀ssassin 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your explanation simply doesn't float with me. It smacks of bureaucratic dogma, hiding behind policy and status. I couldn't care less if it wouldn't pass a peer review if you and EyeSerene are these supposed "peers." Information should be shared. This ending to the show, written by Moffat himself should be shared. Your strict adherence to meaningless and arbitrary policies is beyond foolish and beyond inflexible, in my opinion. In my eyes, all you have achieved here is to disfigure this article.
However, I realize I cannot change this, as I don't have the time or the inclination to make it my task in life to make sure Wikipedia meets some stuffy set of parameters. You can. So, I guess we at the Doctor Who Forums will be the only ones to get the complete story. Sad. I'll make sure Mr. Moffat knows. Maybe he can get it out there some other way. Clearly we can't expect Wikipedia to actually be complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.29.59 ( talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(please excuse my bad English)
Since I am a fan of the series, I may not be entirely objective to what can be read in this article. But I don't understand why all of the characters are described in such diminishing words, together with the whole series. The relation to Seinfeld is just mentioned and yet the parallell is obvious; if you are not able to relate to these everyday single life frustration, you are not able to understand the humour.
Comparing it with Friends is unfair. The only thing it has in common with Friends is that there are 6 main characters. The characters of Friends are way too prude. There are no obvious parallels between the characters, and there is the age difference.
What I miss - and what I considder as central in the series are the different philosophies if the men in the series, and to some extent the women, too. The basis of the series is the dialogue, the endless discussions of how men could understand women och vice versa. The lengthy and untraditional, but often rather intelligent observations of many aspects of life has been narrowed down to (in the case of Jeff) "constant sexual frustration, ridiculous stories and fantasies about women and sex". Those kind of comments could hardly be considered as objective.
The central place in the series is the pub - I would estimate 30-40% of the time of the series is spent in this pub (including entire episodes), and it is not even mentioned in the article. It is here where the different aspects of life are being discussed, and where most of the action begins or ends and sometimes even takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.172.131 ( talk) 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Unlike most American adaptations, this show was intended to be a word-for-word duplicate of the British version,"
i don't think this is a true statement, many american shows have been based around or completely copied from brittish tv, and very very often, at least the first episode or pilot has been a word for word copy, i think the office was, and i can recall hearing of others that are the same but i can't give them as examples, perhaps should be looked at-- 81.23.56.12 ( talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Coupling (UK 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)