Talk:Harry Hill's TV Burp

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry Hill's TV Burp article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: British Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unsubstantiated opinion

I have removed the following section from the introduction to the article:

"This type of format was pioneered by the US E! network's Talk Soup and subsequently The Soup but on a smaller scale. ^{[citation needed]}"

I have done this for several reasons. Firstly, this seems like nothing more than opinion to me, secondly, the claim has been unsubstantiated since last month, and thirdly, google hits turn up nothing except more comparisons made on forums etc. Nowhere has Harry Hill or anyone connected with TV Burp claimed that Talk Soup or The Soup are inspirations for the show, something which I'd assume would be necessary to include reference to these shows in the introductory paragraph for TV Burp.

If independent sources can be provided which show that the American shows were inspiration for TV Burp then this should probably be mentioned further down in the article, but not in the introduction. If no such sources can be found, I think the most these shows deserve is a link at the bottom of the article in the "see also" section. Reidlophile (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following section, again, for the reasons stated above.

"The format had been pioneered on a smaller scale in the US by E! network's Talk Soup (and the more recent spinoff The Soup). The style was not new to British screens either: the precursor being In Bed with Medinner, hosted by Bob Mills. This ran during the 1990s and was essentially the same format as TV Burp only slower-paced and far more deadpan." Reidlophile (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

I am having difficulty understanding what is being described in the second para. Can someone rephrase it for people who have not seen the show? E.g., who is "he"? Is it Hill? Metamagician3000 10:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few alterations - does this help? Elcondor 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders

I heard he was banned from the set of eastenders because the show didn't like him taking the piss. aNyone know any more? Magic Pickle 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the first season the BBC wouldn't let them clear clips so they used courtroom-style chalk sketches of the show 130.88.181.150 09:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just says TBA on the article for it, but because there's 25 episodes, wouldn't it be in 2009? Yowuza ZX Wolfie 13:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Adamiow (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008

Would anyone like to help this article up to B-Class? Yowuza Talk 2 me! 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What do we need to do? Adamiow (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could add more referenes. Yowuza Talk 2 me! 17:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look at the article, there is plenty to be looked at. Key references required are:

The Soup and TV Burp relationship
Teddington
Other writers
Pilot on Avalon website
Slots

The article could do with a reformating, with a format section, including details of the elements, as well as a pure history of transmission section. The recurring elements is too much trivia and needs consolidated and added to the format, with references. The awards could also be improved, possibly in a table. Any views? Adamiow (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, basicly. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:29, 17 November 2008

I think whatever happens, Recurring elements needs to be kept in some form. Harry Hill's humour is such that he uses alot of running jokes that can range from one episode, a whole season or even between seasons (he did a joke a few weeks ago that referenced back to a joke from the previous season). It's very much a big part of the show and needs noting--HellCat86 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it needs clean-up. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the recurring elements to bring it into the format, and put my proposal below:

TV Burp usually consists of jokes about the week's television. After the short jokes to introduce the show and the main content of the first half, a pre-advertisement 'fights' that attempt to determine which of two people or things from a scene are "best". After making the comparison, Hill's signature tagline follows: "But which is better? (A) or (B)? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT!", at which point two actors representing the characters of the comparison appear from either side and engage in a wrestling match while Hill goads them on. In series eight, the fight became a mass brawl involving seven people. At the end of every show, one of the people referenced in the show comes back to sing a song. Within the programme, "TV Highlight of the Week" is a tiny segment of a show showing an entirely mundane event. Occasionally, this is replaced with a variant on the same theme. Staged or edited shots in which Hill 'appears' in a show (sometimes as himself, sometimes as a character from said show) to artificially alter the outcome of the scene or to mimic or attack a character that has annoyed him. There have also be a variety of series and episode specific running gags, which have included “cataracts,” animal noises and Freak Eaters phrases.

Any views? Obviously, some references are required, but this is a good start. Adamiow (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Times

tonight? (6th december) --91.105.66.230 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT A FORUM, but yes, 8:15, after the first X Factor show. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas special 2008?

If anybody doesn't mind me asking this, was there actually a Christmas special for this year? I mean, I thought there was one today but it turns out it was the Review of the Year. The Christmas special must've been last week and I didn't realise it. Could anyone help me out in this? --Burai (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an episode each Saturday evening, as usual, but no extra Christmas episode. The most recent episode was on yesterday instead of today. F W Nietzsche (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so there won't be a Christmas special like it had in the past two years? Might as well make that edit then. --Burai (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth season?

I noticed an edit on the article that a ninth series commenced yesterday, and I don't think it's true. The eighth series is still going, even though it was on a four-week hiatus for The Best Of TV Burp to temporarily fit in. I've reverted that edit anyway, as everyone else would know the eighth series is still going despite this. --Burai (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Re-write

I think that this article really needs re-writing, the huge lists of bullet points are unnecesary.

Is anyone willing to help me on this daunting task. --Etincelles (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This needs a sub-page or similar to work around to fix the said section. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea, I am not too sure how to create a subpage. Will you be able to start it? --Etincelles (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, when can we start? --Etincelles (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just copy/pasted the said section on there. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem- Class74fan

The individual in question keeps filling the article with a list of near every joke/sketch that appears in the current series week by week. I've reverted it several times but he/she persists. The recurring jokes listings is able to appear because it's part of the show's trademark humour and is carefully managed so only the noteable incidents are referenced. These wider additions are just cluttering the article with bad explantions of jokes which make no sense out of context.--HellCat86 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic content, lack of neutrality

The entire page reads like a combination of PR and a fan site. It really isn't very "wiki" at all. Even the "Reception" section seems to imply that Hill's show is universally popular and I note that one previous negative criticism of Hill's humour was deleted. I have now added one negative review to that section, which is sourced. Another issue is notability. Obviously a networked TV show is notable enough to justify a page - but whether that justifies an episode by episode account of every single series is another matter. --Archstanton (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unfinished

I think that the article contains too much unessicary information, that is unfinished. I think these sections should be made into separate articles, or deleted. An example of this is the ratings. I feel that it should include the ratings of all the series, or should just show each series as a whole. I also feel that the characters section needs to be expanded, as some characters have great descriptions, whereas most have none — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkdrinker (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who numbered the series?

Starting with "series" 9, each "series" has a two-month break in the middle. It was my understanding that these were considered separate series by the network / production company.

Also, are these episode counts skipping the "Best Of" episodes? According to my records, Best Of TV Burp 10 first aired March 27, 2010, and Best Of TV Burp 11 aired April 3, 2010, but neither of these airings are listed. --Larry Hastings (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Hill's TV Burp. 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:

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) 08:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]