![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's the basis for saying that Nick Hanway is a backbench MP? This is never mentioned in the show, and I can't find anything anywhere to support it. Ruudboy ( talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, nothing defending it so I'm taking it out. Ruudboy ( talk) 13:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Malcolm Tucker, Nicola Murray and Ollie Reeder are now part of the opposition. The Government now includes Peter Mannion and Fergus Williams as the DoSac guys. This will mean the whole article needs to be re-written to account for these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.215.182 ( talk) 22:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed several of the speculative sections detailing which real politicians these characters are based on. Other than Tucker/Campbell, which is frequently commented on, these seem to be original research (plausable though they are). Bob talk 07:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The current table format leaves a narrow strip of text running down the whole page, with an ocean of white space formed by columns 1, 2, 3 and 5. This makes the text unnecessarily cramped while huge areas of screen are unused.
Two alternatives to this would be (1) to remove the table format altogether and write it as prose, or (2) use a format where for each character there is a row of short tabular information above a whole-page-width text section (difficult to describe, but used for many episode lists - eg Cabin_Pressure_(radio_series)).
(Oh, and why are the govt., the civil service and the opposition prefixed with 'Her Majesty's'? - it isn't really necessary and it's not as if they are uniformly referred to this way in the series.)
Any thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the second alternative - will be a far better use of the space. Would prefer to see it kept in a table rather than prose.
As for "Her Majesty's"... technically, I suppose they're the full titles, but I can't remember if they've ever been referred to as such in the show. Skarloey ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Skarloey ( talk) 18:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
At jamies facebook page, his name is spelled Jamie McDonald not Jamie MacDonald 94.145.236.194 ( talk) 10:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the parts where the fictional characters are claimed to be based on real politicians. The most obvious, Tucker based on Alasdair Campbell, is denied by Capaldi in an interview here. The rest were weasel-worded ('some think...') or obvious OR ('probably...').
Any of this should be sourced if anyone wants to put it back, otherwise it fails WP:NOR. Since the comparisons are to real living people, there may be WP:BLP concerns too. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The recent changes don't work for me. Just swapping over the characters in the Opposition and Government sections doesn't make sense - for example, Abbott is now in the opposition section despite never appearing in the program as anything other than a govt. minister. Characters like Tucker have been in Govt for 3 series out of 4, so it doesn't feel right to have him in the opposition section either.
There is a problem in that the parties are never named (AFAIR), and it would be OR to describe them using the names of the real parties they are pretty obviously based on.
We need to think of a better solution than the current situation, and while we do, I think the article should reflect the 3 series that have been broadcast rather than the one just starting.
I've reverted, please discuss. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The current article states 'This act of hubris proves his undoing, however, when the Inquiry panel produces an enlarged copy of the complete photo showing him in possession of Douglas Tickel's NHS and NI numbers.' However, the article does not say who Mr Tickel is first. The name isn't as important as the explanation as to why this is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.176.5 ( talk) 18:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
What's the basis for saying that Nick Hanway is a backbench MP? This is never mentioned in the show, and I can't find anything anywhere to support it. Ruudboy ( talk) 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, nothing defending it so I'm taking it out. Ruudboy ( talk) 13:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Malcolm Tucker, Nicola Murray and Ollie Reeder are now part of the opposition. The Government now includes Peter Mannion and Fergus Williams as the DoSac guys. This will mean the whole article needs to be re-written to account for these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.215.182 ( talk) 22:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed several of the speculative sections detailing which real politicians these characters are based on. Other than Tucker/Campbell, which is frequently commented on, these seem to be original research (plausable though they are). Bob talk 07:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The current table format leaves a narrow strip of text running down the whole page, with an ocean of white space formed by columns 1, 2, 3 and 5. This makes the text unnecessarily cramped while huge areas of screen are unused.
Two alternatives to this would be (1) to remove the table format altogether and write it as prose, or (2) use a format where for each character there is a row of short tabular information above a whole-page-width text section (difficult to describe, but used for many episode lists - eg Cabin_Pressure_(radio_series)).
(Oh, and why are the govt., the civil service and the opposition prefixed with 'Her Majesty's'? - it isn't really necessary and it's not as if they are uniformly referred to this way in the series.)
Any thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the second alternative - will be a far better use of the space. Would prefer to see it kept in a table rather than prose.
As for "Her Majesty's"... technically, I suppose they're the full titles, but I can't remember if they've ever been referred to as such in the show. Skarloey ( talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Skarloey ( talk) 18:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
At jamies facebook page, his name is spelled Jamie McDonald not Jamie MacDonald 94.145.236.194 ( talk) 10:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the parts where the fictional characters are claimed to be based on real politicians. The most obvious, Tucker based on Alasdair Campbell, is denied by Capaldi in an interview here. The rest were weasel-worded ('some think...') or obvious OR ('probably...').
Any of this should be sourced if anyone wants to put it back, otherwise it fails WP:NOR. Since the comparisons are to real living people, there may be WP:BLP concerns too. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The recent changes don't work for me. Just swapping over the characters in the Opposition and Government sections doesn't make sense - for example, Abbott is now in the opposition section despite never appearing in the program as anything other than a govt. minister. Characters like Tucker have been in Govt for 3 series out of 4, so it doesn't feel right to have him in the opposition section either.
There is a problem in that the parties are never named (AFAIR), and it would be OR to describe them using the names of the real parties they are pretty obviously based on.
We need to think of a better solution than the current situation, and while we do, I think the article should reflect the 3 series that have been broadcast rather than the one just starting.
I've reverted, please discuss. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The current article states 'This act of hubris proves his undoing, however, when the Inquiry panel produces an enlarged copy of the complete photo showing him in possession of Douglas Tickel's NHS and NI numbers.' However, the article does not say who Mr Tickel is first. The name isn't as important as the explanation as to why this is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.176.5 ( talk) 18:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)