Talk:Inside No. 9

Bits to look at

• http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/what-s-on/arts-entertainment/tv-previews/remote-control-saturday-may-16-2015-1-7263273
• http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/DVD-reviews-Birdman-Unbroken-Inside-9/story-26400090-detail/story.html
• "Inside No 9 Monday, 9.40pm, BBC First (117) When Reece Shearsmith, Steve Pemberton and Mark Gatiss burst on to British TV in the late 90s with The League of Gentlemen, I thought I had never seen anything funnier. (I recently re-watched the whole lot on streaming service Stan - it holds up very well.) Set in the fictional Royston Vasey, it featured comedy horror sketches of the town's folk and their strange ways. From Papa Lazarou's travelling circus to Tubs' and Edward's local shop, it undeniably paved the way for Little Britain. Shearsmith and Pemberton have continued working together, memorably on the excellent clown horror series Psychoville. Here, in Inside No 9, they pay homage to some of the great scenes of the horror genre, though it is altogether gentler, and the performances less virtuosic, than their earlier work. In the season two premiere this week, they pay tribute to film's great train-based horror scenes, such as Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express and Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train."

The Australian

July 25, 2015 Saturday Review Edition

QUICK BITES: Pay-tv

BYLINE: JUSTINE BURKE

SECTION: REVIEW; Pg. 25

• "As the second season of Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton's black comedy opens, the No. 9 location is the cramped sleeping compartment of a train heading through France. Its occupants include a flatulent German, a prissy doctor, a backpacking "Australian slapper" and a middle-aged English couple. When an unexpected discovery forces the passengers to interact, there are discussions about priorities, pragmatism and principles. The characters reveal surprising traits and motivations, and it ends with a stinging twit in the tale."

The Age (Melbourne, Australia)

July 23, 2015 Thursday First Edition

pay tv highlights; pay to view

BYLINE: Debi Enker

SECTION: GREEN GUIDE; Preview; Pg. 16

LENGTH: 1083 words

Series 3 sources

• http://www.bbcstudioworks.com/?p=3567

Lead section

I have been editing back and forth with an anonymous user for the last few days. The anonymous user prefers this version of the lead. I prefer this version of the lead. As best as I can tell, the anonymous user does not understand the purpose of a lead section, which exists to summarise the remainder of the article. They are thus unhappy about how content in the lead is "redundant" to content elsewhere in the article, and apparently unhappy about how certain claims in the lead lack citations (see WP:LEADCITE). I have tried to trim the lead (as there was a concern that the lead was too long, despite being well within the length guidelines) but the IP user is apparently unhappy with this, and has reverted to their preferred version with the explanation that "test is still heavily redundant with later content, plus other changes outside of". I am unclear on what this is meant to mean. Does anyone else have a view on this, or would the anonymous user perhaps care to explain their concerns (preferably with reference to Wikipedia policies/guidelines)? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now that there are two anonymous users, though perhaps they are the same person editing from different IPs. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness as it would take more space than the edit summary box allows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoville https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Valley_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benidorm_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_League_of_Gentlemen Compare the opening summaries of these four series, which conveniently feature one or both of Pemberton or Shearshmith, with the outdated opening of the IN9 article. Unless J is arguing that all of those article openings could benefit from quadrupling in length, there is nothing left to discuss. 86.12.191.4 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is far better than any of those; if you were to compare the lead of the present article to some well-developed articles (specifically, featured articles; e.g., The Simpsons, Degrassi: The Next Generation or The Wire) you would see that a lead far longer than the one you prefer is standard. Again, have you read WP:LEAD? This guideline specifically addresses length concerns; you will see that, according to the guideline, a length of three paragraphs for an article of this length is actually within the recommended parameters. You appear to be confused about the purpose of a lead section. You remain confused about "redundancy" and the use of citations. I've tried to compromise with you, I've tried to communicate with you, I've tried to appeal to Wikipedia guidelines. What more can I do? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's the situation; I really can't revert any further, as you (or someone else) will just use that as evidence that I'm an edit warrior or something. So, I'm going to have to leave this article in a worse state for a time, and open up this discussion to a broader audience. I hope one or several of them will be willing to revert the lead to the better version. You should be made aware of the three revert rule and the guidelines on edit warring. (Of course, who needs established guidelines when you've got a vague intuition that something isn't right?) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the entire article, with at least one sentence per article section usually being a good guide to aim for. This article is pretty substantial, so the IP's proposed version definitely doesn't cut it for me. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This version (i.e. the longer one) is clearly the surperior version, and vastly superior at that. The lead should summarise all the main points of the article. MOS:LEAD clearly states the "lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". By this I take it to mean thatI should be able to read the lead and understand the subject's notability without having to read the rest of the article. The longer version of the lead fulfils this requirement, the short version does not. The underdeveloped state of the other articles should not be used as a motive to scale back development on this article. As for the citations J Milburn is quite correct that claims in the lead do not require a citation provided they are sourced in the main body; I believe the only exception to this is potentially defaming claims about living persons, which obviously does not apply in this instance. If the length of the lead really is regarded as an issue—and by that I mean by an impartial third party—then perhaps it is not necessary to name every episode in the second paragraph; if further series are filmed then I suspect they will be trimmed in due course anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and WP:LEADLENGTH clear this up. Those articles probably do need more expansive leads. The point of a lead is to summarize an article. If you can summarize and I article that is 140kb large in about 8 sentences, then I would immediately assume you've missed a LOT of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• I mostly agree with the longer lede, but I think it would be improved by losing the episode titles. It makes it unwieldy with too much detail, and too much like a list for the lede IMO. Anyone looking for those titles will want to read on further anyway. Mramoeba (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  I agree. You don't need to list that in the lead. I would only list the overall date of the series run, not any particular season like that. It seems more like that was being added each year and then no one got rid of the previous year's info.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree with all about a longer lead. Particularly important these days with mobile phones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section after a short intro contains a list of every actor (listed by episode) who has appeared in the show.

I had previously removed the list of names. Another editor reverted the change pointing out that part of the notability of the show was that it featured new "famous" guest stars in every episode. I do agree with this but I have concerns that the section is getting out of hand and detracting from the overall good look of the article. The section is already very large and by the time the current series is complete it is going to be very unwieldy.

Can I suggest two things as a minimum for this section. 1. Remove the multiple entries "Pemperton" and "Shearsmith" from the list. If the purpose is to highlight the guest stars then then including them is not necessary. 2. Look at a way to better format the list. (There is currently a lot of dead space) Potentially with a column for each series. Graemec2 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these are both good ideas. The fact that Shearsmith and Pemberton appear in (basically) every episode can be mentioned in the intro section. Can you think of any articles that format cast lists in a more attractive way? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've thrown it into a table and moved the images around a bit- I think it looks much better. What do you think? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a couple of suggestions. Can we have the text going from the top down, rather than centered (it looks a little bit strange)? Also, can we explicitly list (in the prose paragraphs of the Cast section) the episodes where Shearsmith and/or Pemberton are absent (though I can't remember any off the top of my head)? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 12:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Pemperton does not appear in ""The Harrowing"" apart from that they are both in every episode.Graemec2 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pemberton is not in "The Harrowing", Shearsmith is not in "Last Gasp", neither are in the online-only episode. I can't speak for series 4. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Shearsmith does appear briefly in "The Last Gasp" in the final scene as "Mr Fourbouys" although he is not credited.Graemec2 (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? I certainly didn't notice, and it's not mentioned in any sources I've seen (some of which note Shearsmith's absence). Josh Milburn (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv: I've made both changes you suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you – I think it looks much better now. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea to tabulate this, though at some future point it may need to become a horizontal rather than a vertical table if more series are added. This is Paul (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

2022

The table on my browser is displaying terribly and clashes with the images. I have a better idea. Why don't we list the cast in the episode tables higher up? I will mock something up to see what people think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see Series 4 for a proposal of how it could look. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22 and J Milburn: as active editors on this article, I just checking you are okay with this approach before I work further on it? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like it. It's difficult to read, the Episode table template is much easier on the eye. I think the above discussion was talking about reformatting the cast table, not getting rid of it. The cast table would look much better if it were split into two rows of four. But regarding the episode layout, sorry, Episode table is much better. - X201 (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What is it you prefer about the previous layout? Do you prefer the cast omitted (if so, why?) or is it the colours that you like? If the latter, I can work on that, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Have added some horizontal coloured lines to make the table clearer. In general though I think there is too many different colours on this article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you should stop converting the existing series. If only to save yourself the risk of wasted work. WikiProject Television has guidelines and a manual of style regarding the presentation of this information. A bespoke solution for an individual article seems to be a complete breakaway from that, and along with the big objections that can be raised when ever the use of Wikidata in Wikipedia articles is mentioned, I really think this should go to larger input from the Wikipedia community. Additionally, I don't think it addresses what was being talked about above, which is the reformatting of the cast box on its own. - X201 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would help if we could separate the two issues, and perhaps we could start with how best to present the cast members. The current display of the table next to the images, just does not work on smaller displays and would seem to break accessibility guidelines. It is physically impossible for me to view the content on my tablet - I suggest you try and you may see what I mean! Therefore we need to rearrange that section. But as we already have the episode tables, it seemed more logical to incorporate into that. I have read the MOS and I think a case can be made to deviate in this case. The guidelines were perhaps not written with anthology series in mind. I am willing to start a discussion over there, but why don't we see if we can come to an agreement between ourselves first? What, in your view, is the benefit of a separate table for the cast, and what are the downsides to incorporating in the existent tables? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The episode table template has options for custom header and columns so could use that for cast instead of using a different table format? Issues with new format in my view is inconsistency, full viewing figure number, and lack of overall episode number Indagate (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think getting rid of the image gallery, or at the least, giving it a severe pruning would be a good starting point. - X201 (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that might be a good idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

While I don't have issues with the guest cast members being added to the table, I have a very serious issue with the changed style and oppose its usage. {{Episode list}} is the standard template and style we use for episode tables. We've worked hard to make sure our readers have a consistent style when moving between articles and there is zero reason to change that for this article. The only reason I'm not reverting it right now is because this discussion. Gonnym (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, in the future when you want to propose a new style that clashes with the existing style, do it in a sandbox or talk page. Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Gonnym: Series 2-4 should use the standard {{Episode table}}/{{Episode list}} formatting as of the May 2 revision – these can easily accommodate adding a 'Guest cast members' column (using one of the Aux columns – though having both a 'Location' and 'Guest cast members' "extra" columns may present a challenge). So use of these non-standard tables there are not even necessary here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with @Gonnym and IJBall:. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's feedback. I will be reverting those changes later today. There were clearly too many changes to make at one time and I will slow down and propose one at a time. I agree that consistency across articles is important so I may take some proposals to the template talk. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Dead Line

Good luck to the person who writes the plot summary for this one. I mean, where would you even start? :) This is Paul (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It definitely needs a article on its own. M622 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)M622

Circular redirects

All of the links to series four are currently redirects, as is the one for "Dead Line". Someone changed that one to link to a disambiguation page, which probably isn't the solution so I changed it back for now. But, presently it's deceptive because people would think there's an article to click on and read only to find themselves taken back to this article. I'm wondering if we should delink them all until articles are created. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. M622 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)M622

Why use a photo from a different TV series?

Given how sensitive Wikipedia is in the use of images, I'm puzzled as to why a photo of Pemberton from League of Gentlemen is used as an illustration for this article given this article clearly indicates that - except for a few small references - there is no narrative connection between the two shows. If Pemberton had played Pauline in a crossover episode, that would be one thing, but I don't see how the image adds anything beyond what is already stated in the text and an image directly related to the series - or, as was done with Shearsmith, a general photo of Pemberton out of costume - would be more appropriate here and probably easier to defend in the event of a copyvio challenge. 136.159.160.5 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems this has been resolved. I guess it was simply because we didn't have a suitable image available. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Series 5 Episode 1 title

Is the censored word actually censored in the official title of the episode, or is that just us? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The title card of the episode, as hosted on BBC iPlayer ([1]), uses the text "THE REFEREE'S A W***ER". Incidentally, the episode is listed on iPlayer as "The Referee's A..."—but yes, it does appear the official title uses the asterisks. MIDI (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Overall number

Unless this number is sourced somewhere it seems to fall foul of WP:OR. I think the number is series is sufficient anyway. Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems to comply with WP:CALC, table is transcluded on 15756 pages so shouldn't replace without larger consensus Indagate (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay I see what you mean about WP:CALC. But I just don't see what that number adds to the article or what value it has t the reader. It's not a criticism of the template because that will just display whatever it's given — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The template supports the column not being used so guess could have local consensus to not use it, see limited or one-season shows like Moon Knight (TV series). Think it can be useful to see the quantity of episodes in context of show and season. Larger discussion could take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television or Template:Episode list Indagate (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Episodes guide format

Is there a reason Series 3 and 4 should have a different format to the rest of the series in the Episodes section? 2A02:C7F:4CB9:BD00:454A:C4B9:D451:9DAC (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

See 2022 in the cast section above. - X201 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you can help us reach agreement on the best format — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Spoilers

There is some conflict in the edit history about whether or not spoilers of episode twists should be included in the guide, mainly focused on the s4 episode 'To Have And To Hold'. I believe, with reference to the Wikipedia pages on other anthology series, that it is not necessary to include major spoilers and a couple of lines on the basic plot is all we need (on top of which, the creators of the show would surely prefer twists not to be spoiled). What are other people's thoughts? 2A02:C7F:4CB9:BD00:454A:C4B9:D451:9DAC (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It is unlikely that detail like this can be given in such a short summary on this article. A longer plot section on a standalone article would be needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Viewers

What is the best source to verify the viewer numbers? Most of these are unreferenced currently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Think BARB only have top 50 programmes of week available for public now[2], used to be more. May be able to find the old figures in archive or secondary source though Indagate (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Cast Named in Episode Guides (Series 8)

Just my thought here but I don't think we really need to name all the cast in the episode guide when we have the Cast List section. When their characters are mentioned then fine, put them in brackets, but otherwise it doesn't seem necessary. Especially as this hasn't been the case for previous series. 2A02:C7F:4CC5:E500:C849:7B3C:1979:E495 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Awards

@UntitledExcess That was a huge change you made all at once and it is difficult to see the effect. Would you mind summarising what you did and why? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I mostly just moved a lot of the award information into the table instead, as there was a lot of duplication between the table and text, and this brings it more in line with other TV articles. I also don't think the mention of other nominees for every award is relevant for an encyclopedia. There is still duplicate information, and information that would better suit the table, but I didn't feel like addressing that today. I also corrected one or two citations which didn't actually provide the information mentioned in the relevant sentence. Let me know if anything I've done seems excessive - I haven't edited wikipedia in years. UntitledExcess (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I assume all the references were moved to the table (if they weren't there already)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Some were just moved to the table, some were changed (I thought the award pages themselves would be better and clearer than news articles?) and some were removed because they didn't provide any extra information that wasn't covered by other references. I've left some things in text in the previous section before the table because technically they have extra details (e.g. Shearsmith's tweet reaction, and a couple of journalists reactions) and I wasn't sure whether taking that out would be too much. There are also a couple of awards mentioned that I haven't yet moved to the table, for no real reason other than being nervous about making too big of an edit and messing something up.

I was also thinking of slightly cutting down the lead section to take out the mention of the more minor awards/nominations (keeping BAFTAs and British Comedy Awards), but obviously keeping the info in the section itself. UntitledExcess (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)