Talk:That Mitchell and Webb Look

Mornington Crescent

In October 2010, I added the sentence:

"Numberwang may have drawn inspiration from the I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue game Mornington Crescent which has no rules but is played as though very complex rules are being applied."

It was deleted in Feb 2011, with no explanation. Numberwang is not unique in concept, but enriches and forms an important part of a unique concept that I believe was started by I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. (I only say it "may have drawn inspiration" from Mornington Crescent. The point is that the idea was already out there, and no-one, not even the creators of Numberwang, can say that MC had no influence. ) However, I'm neither sold on its inclusion or exclusion. If it gets re-instated, it won't be by me. Vynbos 09:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The explanation was that it was 'original research' which is not accurate (the explanation, not the 'research'). However, there is no citation for the assertion and although it makes perfect sense without a citation it is effectively (and admittedly) speculation. I've reverted it but changed the wording slightly so that it is non speculative in nature. PRL42 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wording

on the list of sketches, I added the "british broadcasting network". The old black and white sketch. But I didn't word it very well so maybe someone could make it sound better. T0mm0 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kerr

Is the link of this David Kerr to the ulster nationalist really right?

No --Mercifull 12:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir Digby articles

I have noticed that there are two articles for Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar. There is The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken-Caesar article, and the The Surprising Adventures Of Sir Digby Chicken-Ceaser (the difference being the capital "O" and the spelling of "Ceasar"). These articles need to be sorted. ISD 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorted, have made the poorer of the two articles (which was also the one with the mis-spelt title) a redirect to the other one..... ChrisTheDude 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks! ISD 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The BMX sketches only appeared in the first episode, they're not recurring at all --MartinUK 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking they did recur within that episode, though, as there was (if I recall rightly) three separate sketches. Does that truly count as recurring, though? Who knows......? ChrisTheDude 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

List of sketches

Is very long, maybe split into separate article? Pearcey1000 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Numberwang

Fine then, forget it. I added what I felt was a lot of valuable information to the article to really help improve it, but its constantly getting deleted so I'm gonna leave it. Pearcey1000 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Series 4

Did anyone else find episode 6 (of 6) of series 4 strangely valedictory? The between-sketches sketch spoke of a parting of the ways of M&W; and the final "Senile Holmes" sketch was hardly funny at all -- rather, very sad -- foreshadowing the waning talents of the primary genius of a popular duo, at the same time as showing off their present acting skills to an unusual degree. Leon Robbins (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

They also talked about the final scene of Blackadder Goes Forth. I think there were a lot of hinting to a possible end of this particular sketch show. However, unless they confirm anything, any such information in the article would be speculation or "original research". I suggest to just wait and see.--93.232.74.223 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On radio

Why is this programme introduced as being a television show, when it was originally on BBC Radio 4?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the entry in question is for the television programme? There was never a radio programme with the name of the entry. PRL42 (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

'Over Detailed' Banner

I've removed this as it's been there for a couple of months and no one has removed anything. Would it not be better if editors who believe there is too much detail actually deleted/moved it themselves rather than cluttering up the encyclopedia with banners? PRL42 (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See Also

Someone added Armstrong and Miller to this section. It was deleted and I reverted the delete because there seemed to be enough connectors to make it valid. Someone has deleted the entry again (And I've reverted with explanation). It would be good to get further opinions as to whether or not the entry is reasonable. (Connectors: Contemporaneous, BBC, alternative comedy, based on two named performers). PRL42 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the only connection is that 1) The two crossed-over for Comic Relief (M/W in a pilots sketch and A/M in a Digbey Chicken Ceaser one) and 2) Mitchell (at least) has written sketches for Armstrong and Miller in the past. So, yeah, I'd there is probably some connection. Gran² 13:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly no justification for having this linked from this page. Being a "Contemporaneous BBC alternative comedy based on two named performers" just doesn't cut it. It's a completely unrelated show. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note the section above which was started to discuss this topic. If you can get a concensus for removal here then the entry can be deleted. PRL42 (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed. Stewartdc8 (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see why it's there either. Foomandoonian (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Above I was really just outlining the connection, not really supporting it being there. See also sections have always been pointless in my eyes. The Comic Relief cross-over should be mentioned in the article somewhere. That's it. Gran² 11:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to the section. I just feel that if something is not inaccurate and has been around for some months, a consensus to delete should be obtained before removal. I'd agree with Gran2 that 'See Also' sections are redundant as any linkage should have been indicated elsewhere in an article where it's relevance can be shown. PRL42 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be it's not needed so away it goes. PRL42 (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Redudancy?

Outlandishly Rude Worker: A series of skits involving people who should be working in a field that would dictate courteous behavior on their parts, but instead act quite the opposite. For example, a priest who berates a yuppy couple, and a waiter who abuses his customer's intellectually until they are forced to leave.

And...

The Honeymoon's Over: Mitchell plays a rude, mean, condescending, and posh man who takes a variety of different jobs, in all of which he does his best to demean his customers (Webb and Colman) and make them feel uncomfortable and inferior. When Webb and Colman ask about the nice people they had seen in a previous visit (often "that friendly Australian girl with the colourful jumper"), Mitchell replies "She/he's gone, sir. They've all gone, and we're back!" Jobs have included being a vicar, a waiter, and a menswear shop assistant.

aren't these exactly the same thing? 71.243.253.201 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to remove the inferior one. Gran² 16:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The new version doesn't even describe the sketches all that well. I thought it might refer to the "They've gone - and we're back" sketches but I couldn't be sure - even though I couldn't specifically remember anything similar. PRL42 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended episodes?

Are there two different versions like Qi, where there's an edited down and an extended episode. Just watched an episode on TV, and it had sketches I hadn't seen before, but alongside ones I know I have.121.73.221.187 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)