Talk:Little Britain (TV series)

Material

Who did the guys get the material and ideas for the show from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.207.87 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did the guys get the material from? They wrote it. As to ideas, the growing chav culture, insulting weightwatcher groups and so on. You'll have to ask them. 92.20.144.201 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Latymer Crown

I removed 'when the show is being broadcast' from the BBC Radio 4 external link because I thought it gave a false impression (particularly to people who can't get the BBC) that you can't listen to it unless the series is being broadcast currently (when you can). I'm sorry if this seems picky, but I think I should give some justification for changing what the previous editor wrote. -- Cortina 21:56, 21 February 2004 (UTC)

What it actually said was "when the series is being broadcast" not "when the show is being broadcast", and thats true, its being repeated on Radio 4 on tuesdays at the moment for the next few weeks, but once the series has finished you wont be able to listen to it again until they broadcast the next series or repeat this one again. Maybe I could've used better wording though, some like "when the series is on, for a week after each episode has been broadcast you can listen to the latest episode." OK?Saul Taylor 01:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I changed it back. Sorry for doubting you, but I just wasn't sure -- I stand corrected. Cortina

The series has been released on audio CD. It is a BBC audiobook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.5.117 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think Speedway's additions are relevant (specifically quotes). Looks like a bad edit to me. IDX So you don't like the Series 2 section then? User:Speedway

Mr man, that shopkeeper and Margaret should be included in this article, I'm not sure what the shopkeeper's name is though. And Viv the lady who says everyone is gaaaawwwwgeous.

Also characters weren't necessarily ditched in favour of others, some simply could not have sets made in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.251.24 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2004

I was in WH Smiths yesterday and the League of Gentlemen script book is called Scripts and That. Are you sure the Little Britain book is too? User:Speedway

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007193025/qid=1104007608/ref=pd_ka_1/202-5164192-8858265 - "Little Britain": The Complete Scripts and All That - Series 1: Vol 1 --Neo 20:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, sorry. User:Speedway

I think it should be made clear that it is only Judy who vomits on people. Maggie just stares, horrified. User:Speedway 12:09, 1 Jan 05 Actually its the other way round Dogs suck. Cats rule. 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC) David Cat

Feel free to edit the article! -- Avaragado 12:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To whoever edited Latymer Crown to Latymer: His full name is Latymer Crown, as said on the Commentary. I added some sections on the DVD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.145.213 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2005

Criticism

I find the criticism section to be somewhat riduculous and the shows critics opinions are unfounded. yes, the show is crude. yes, it ridicules many people, but it is a very self loathing sort of ridicule which is the entire reason it is funny in the first place. What the show is really making fun of is the manners - peculiar to the English in this case - of prudes, homophobes and racists. 'Little Britain' indeed. Don't these people know what 'camp' is?! This is not 'South Park,' which actually is offensive and stupid, since SP is done by two straight rich white guys, who don't even understand what they're making fun of most of the time, which is why they are not funny, and Little Britain is. I think the comparison to South Park is warranted, but South Park is a failure as camp humor. I also feel this article warrants an LGBT tag since it is pure queer humor and is most certainly part of gay culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelt65 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 July 2007

Seeing as Mat Lucas has no hair at all i think he knows what it is like to be a minority and the show trivialises differences such as homosexuality and race making people look past it to the appauling personality of the character-Fists- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.214.140 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section should mention that the 'recurring characters' are basically rehashing the same jokes over and over. You can find plenty of references to this24.4.132.165 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Majorie Dawes and Pauline

I think these characters are very similar; in fact when I first switched on MD, I thought it was Pauline (League of Gentlemen)... the difference being one stops people getting jobs, and the other stops people getting slim, due to their own personal inferiority complexes and bullying. Definitely some influence there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.232.50 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2005

This seems correct. They are both clipboard-using, bullying, and also men dressed as women.DavidFarmbrough 11:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are definate parallels, and it is also documented that The League of Gentlemen team had workshop sessions and collaborations with Walliams & Lucas.--feline1 13:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr Mann - series 2?

Isn't Mr Mann really a Series 2 character? He only makes a single appearance in Series 1, in the 'Pirate Memory Game' sketch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchocky (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 June 2005

The fact that he appears in all three seasons makes him count as a character in each of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.5.117 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Name

"The name is a modification of the term 'Little England'."
Is it? I thought it was from 'Great Britain'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.87.227 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2005

It's from both. Crazy Eddy 11:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-catchphrases

• "Anybody? No? Dust. Anybody? No? Dust." (Marjorie Dawes)
• "(Crying, yet screeching) Ivor! That's the name of Ivor!" (Janet)

Only said by a character once. Don't see how it counts as a catchphrase.

Edit: Actually, Marjorie says this again in Series 2, during the Christmas Day Out with the Fat Fighters.KatsuyaJounouchi 14:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• "I am hard but soft, I am colored yet clear, I am fruity and sweet. I am jelly. What am I?" (Ray McCooney)

He says things along that line, but that particular phrase was only said once.

• "Have you got any pirate memory games?" (Mr Mann)

It was only pirate memory games once, he asked for other things in subsequence sketches.

• "*Dennis Waterman sings a song in the style of the Minder theme tune depending on the job he is being offered." (Dennis Waterman)

Its always a different song, in what way is that a catch phrase. Saul Taylor 07:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Marjorie Dawe's "Dust" line qualifies as a catchphrase by Wikipedia's own definition of a catch phrase, as follows: "A catch phrase is a phrase or expression that becomes spontaneously popularized (i.e., it "catches" on) through widespread repeated usage. Catch phrases often originate in popular culture (such as movies and television), and are spread through a variety of media, including word of mouth. A catch phrase's defining features are its sudden, spontaneous, and widespread public reception, and its adopted use by the public, often to its amusement"

 "Some catch phrases only catch on within specific sub-cultures." 
 "Pronunciation is essential to some catch phrases. For example, Marv Albert's "Yes!" is a catch phrase

mainly due to his distinctive sounding of that word, and people who imitate or parody it try

to duplicate his style. 

It is not the repition of a line's use by a character, so much as it's repition of use by the public. RandallFlagg 21:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Vicky Pollard catchphrase

This might be really picky or indeed even incorrect, thus why I ask here, but isn't her quote "don't go giving me evils" not "Don't give me evils!". I'll go and watch the DVD again but doing a google search I think I might be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesperus (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 October 2005

It actually is "don't go giving me evils." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.5.117 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

12 year olds

I feel I have to say, this "Little Britain" article is one of the poorest I have come across on Wikipedia. It reads like it was written by a bunch of 12 year olds. Much of the grammar and general sentence structure is extremely poor. Some industrious folk need to edit the arse out of it. I only wish I had the time--feline1 21:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, the time you took to leave this comment could have been used for a few constructive minor edits! CLW 08:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe about one! However hopefully my comment being here will inspire dozens of other people to edit! ;-)--feline1 10:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I do kinda agree with you there. But its just too long for me to read through and change in one go. I do change bits think the article needs to be split somehow. I just shaved off 10kb of bollocks, and corrected a bit of spelling/grammar. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it worth splitting the main characters out to their own articles? If some of the 'Allo 'Allo! characters merit their own articles, surely some of the Little Britain ones do! CLW 16:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose they do really. There isnt much written about each character at the moment, but with seperate articles there could be more. Dame Sally Markham already has her own article for some reason.. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that all characters are on one page, do they really need seperate pages as well? Because that page is going to look really ugly if it consists of nothing more than 'Main article: Character name' (unsigned comment by 81.106.157.220 (talk · contribs)

I think these pages are needed. What's so ugly about links through to main articles? If you think they are ugly, remove them and change the character's name to a wikilink through to the main article. One of the previous issues with this page was that it was getting too large. The same will be true of the characters page if key characters don't have their own pages, especially as images and further details are added, which is bound to happen as a new series is imminent. And the page will never be "nothing more than 'Main article: Character name'" - minor characters such as "charity shop shopper" don't warrant their own articles. Just my opinion, though... CLW 17:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit: That's probably because it WAS written by a bunch of twelve- year olds, you twit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.65.33 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2005

Characters section

The characters section looks extremely untidy will all the characters in a paragraph long list. Unless there is anyone opposed, I was planning on changed it to be more like;

• Marjorie Dawes - Leader of Fat Fighters
• Daffyd Thomas - Out gay who believes he is the only gay in the village
• Emily Howard - Transvestite who tries to convince everyone he is "a laydee"
• Sebastian Love - Aide of the Prime Minister, who Sebastian has a crush on

etc, etc. Anyone opposed? Squidward2602 15:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly unreadable as it is now, and your suggestion would tidy it up. But I suggest that if there is to be a list of characters on the main page, it should only be of the most major and frequently occurring ones.

And drop the series sections, too, combine it all in one (relatively short) list... Let's avoid duplicating too much of the content of Little Britain characters. --David Edgar 17:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Quotes and links referring to criticism of Little Britain keeps appearing in the Trivia and External Links sections. Would it be alright to add a critcism section for such citings? Or is it best to just delete them? -- jeffthejiff (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for well-worded criticisms of Little Britain to be deleted, wikipedia isn't a fan site.

Putting them in their own section would probably be the best option —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penx (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 December 2005

I don't believe that this section should be included - this isn't the kind of thing you would find in an encyclopedia article. The anon editor who made the comment that "Wikipedia isn't a fan site" misses the point - even if the radio presenter in question had said "this show is great", it still wouldn't be worthy of inclusion here. CLW 17:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look over the criticism made by Tam Cowan of Off The Ball. Basically, dont take him too seriously. He is a creep with huge problems with woman. Listen to any of his drivel on Off The Ball every saturday for an example. And it did not belong here anyway. RandallFlagg Scotland 12:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried several times to add something on the article that his remotely critical but it is deleted almost immediately. Do Matt Lucas and David Walliams constantly visit Wikipedia or something? This show has recieved a noticeable backlash and this article makes Little Britain sound like it is enjoyed by absolutely everyone. This is inaccurate. --Loganator, 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If it can be written factually and neutrally in its own section, citing appropriate quotes and sources, then there is no reason for it to be removed. However, if it comes across as one person's opinion, then unfortunately it is more likely to be deleted. This doesn't just apply to criticism: I reverted an edit earlier today that was nothing short of an "unqualified rave" for the LB stage show. Chris 42 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now added two sourced criticisms that will hopefully go some way to redress the balance. However much the show is liked, there are those who don't watch it — and, crucially, are prepared to say why. I believe this needs to be reflected in the article. Chris 42 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Guests

When have Keith Harris, Paul Daniels, Debbie McGee and Caroline Quentin appeared in the show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trampikey (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 January 2006

I'm wondering where the heck is "Samantha Power" in the list of the Little Britain voice actors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.231.25 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2006

I think they were in a Series One deleted scene, featuring Peter Andre, who tried to pose as Keith Harris with a fake Orville. Squidward2602 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (and edited again at a later date to correct a fact)

Clean-up

I have been through this article and, without removing any of its intended content, have given it a general tidy-up, including replacing any repetition and grammar/typos that needed fixing. (Hopefully I spotted all of them!) I removed the (Series 1–3) tags, as they are redundant if a character appeared in all three. I also expanded some of the character descriptions to (hopefully) give a concise summary of each. Chris 42 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also lifted a couple of paragraphs from the Matt Lucas article, concerning the series' style, since they seemed more relevant to this one. I hope it seems a bit more coherent now. Chris 42 00:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia users can easily find fan sites with a Google search - I really don't think we need this many listed. --Gary Kirk (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. But only the very notable ones should be listed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

littlerbritain.com was not a fan site, but the only official tribute act people... --Asterion ^{talk to me} 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding removal of the fan sites by Jeffthejiff, I don't particularly mind having fan sites there, non of them actually constituted SPAM. What I did mind originally about the list that was it was untidy and very difficult to follow... So I tidied it. It was then reverted (by another person) to it's original untidy form for no reason so I changed it back again. As it stands, there should be no arguement no matter how many or how little fan sites are listed, just please keep it tidy. Peter Bowers 21:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC+1)

The only fansite that should be listed is littlebritainfans.com, it's a reliable source with a lot of news articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.66.213 (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ended?

There is no reliable source to say the show has definitely ended and a new series will never be produced...I'm going to rephrase that section --Gary Kirk (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, yet for some reason your rephrasing was reverted to the original "show has ended" introduction.

There are many reliable sources that suggest there will be a Christmas Special this year and a fourth series next year. At the audience recordings for series 3 Matt Lucas said: "You may have heard there will be no more Little Britain after this series. We never said that! We would LOVE to carry it on, so hopefully this is not the last!" In the Daily Mirror (23rd July) the show was reported to be being "rested" during the tour. The Daily Star (23rd July) reported that the Sunday Times report (12th June) about the show being finished was rubbish: Lucas revealed that there will be a fourth series of the comedy despite reports that the show was coming to an end to allow him and Walliams to concentrate on other projects. "We never said that", said Lucas.

So that clears that up, so please could we keep the introduction referring to the show in the present tense as apposed to the past tense until someone like Lucas and Walliams or the BBC themselves is in fact quoted as saying the show has ended. Thanks. --Peter Bowers (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC+1)

Since Little Britain USA was broadcast, David Walliams has announced that Little Britain "will no longer continue." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.5.117 (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The daily star lie, alot! It's over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.150.108 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2007

References to literature

I've found two references to somewhat abstract literature, if a few more can be found it might be worthwhile to add a section about literary references, otherwise it could be included in the trivia section. As it is, the references are:

- In a Bernard Chumley Sketch, a poster for "An Inspector Pops Round" can be seen on the wall. This is a reference to "An Inspector Calls" by J.B. Priestly.

- In a Mr. Cleeves sketch, he uses the line "Unman, Wittering and Zigo absent" which is a reference to the play "Unman, Wittering and Zigo" by Giles Cooper. Tomtyke 06:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

- In the Bernard Chumley Sketches thers a poster for "sex pleases were not Brittish" which is referance to the stage show (and film) "no sex please were Brittish"--Chrisordie 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Characters with no pages

There seems to be a few characters without pages, such as Kenny Craig (who features quite a few times in the show), and yet a character who came in season 2 and doesn't show as much has a page (Bubbles DeVere). Anyone care to make these? I can help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocopopz2005 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 May 2006

I STARTED TO WORK ON KENNY CRAIG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocopopz2005 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 June 2006

So-called intelligent humour

For the record, I am a big fan of Little Britain. However, is it appropriate to say that Little Britain "despite appearing rude, is actually intelligent humor?" It doesn't seem like such a statement should appear in an encyclopedia, as it seems to be completely subjective. Jiggz84 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The characters and what they say, are actually parodies and satire of the personalitys that permeate in society in general. Of how some people are too self obsessed to notice the world arround them is not an extension of their ego. The humour is self depricating in origin and maybe when viewed out of context, it comes across as just being filth and mockery for the sake of mockery. Of course humour is down to individual interpretation. So perhaps others think differently who failed to grasp the complexity of the characters and the associated bigoted views and observations of society being made. It is a comic reflection back of the dichotomy that exists between projected and internalised thoughts, feeling and emotions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.112.93 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Fawlty Towers

If you're interested in sitcoms you may wish to join my new Fawlty Towers-based wikiproject to maintain the standard, and create fabulous new articles based upon this milestone in British Comedy. If you are interested, and woud like to bcome a member, please enquire at the above link, or on my talk page for more information. Thanks Foxearth 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be about improving the Little Britain article. It is not for self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.5.117 (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased entry

This entry is completely biased towards the viewpoint of whomever wrote the entry. Perhaps I am wrong, but should an encyclopedia not just report information and not have a slant on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.16 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2006

Perhaps you could elaborate? As far as I can see, it is factual and balanced. Furthermore, it wasn't written by one person: it is a collaborative effort, and some of us try to ensure that it stays as neutral as possible. Chris 42 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well known

The best known characters on the main article, will they appear on the new series in 2007? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.16.101 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2006

Yuki Kushida

Should Yuki Gushida, who plays a named character (Gita the beauty therapist in Bubble's sketches) be in the guest characters or normal cast or what? I've added her in the past but she seems to have been removed in an edit since. Feedback please. — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Shorten it up, new episode guide!

Hi all, This article is way too long lets clean it up! I have made a new episode guide and a massive nav-box at the base of the article, so lets get to it and try to just link new pages to the nav-box and get that horrible characters list and dvd's list off the main article.

Thankyou , --Aaron J Nicoli 13:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the Trivia section is too big. Some of the information can be cleaned up into other parts of the article or episode guides. It certainly shouldn't have its own subsection. The Doctor Who references could be made into its own section, and expanded to include references to other TV series. ~~ Peteb16 13:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC) I've added a cleanup remainder tag after the Background section. If you belive it needs to be higer please adjust it. Thanks. ~~ Peteb16 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work mate, everyone needs to pich in and get this article looking smick! --Aaron J Nicoli 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Links to actors' articles

I'm going to be bold by reinstating the duplicate links to actors' articles contrary to the current comment (and remove the comment while I am at it).

My interpretation of WP:MOS-L section 1.1 is that terms recurring in the same sentence or paragraph should generally not be relinked, but instances of the term that are distant from one another may be linked if appropriate.

It is plausible that a reader may go directly to "The Cast" section (or take notice of it while scanning), see "Tom Baker", and want to go to his article. They should not need to rescan the entire article looking for his previous wikilink.

I'll directly notify Peteb16 (talk · contribs) and Chris 42 (talk · contribs) since they were involved in the original edits that resulted in the relevant comment tag being added to the article.

Cheers, Chovain 07:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comedy Tumbleweed Awards

These awards are not notable.[1] They were created by an online discussion forum, and do not appear to receive coverage outside blogs.

The contributor (138.253.81.11 (talk · contribs)) suggests in this edit's summary that the article covers positive awards. I see no such coverage (although as my comment in the section immediately above may indicate, I don't want to read the whole thing ;)). In my opinion, the article seems quite balanced: It has a subsection for criticism, which is well referenced. (Disclaimer: I have never seen an episode of the show in my life).

For those reason, I am reverting again. Chovain 13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They have recieved coverage in several high street publications including the newspaper Metro, and have been discussed on British radio.

If you've never seen an episode, how come you said computer says no on the history page, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.35.157 (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2006

Actually, I said "The computer says no," which I learnt is not quite correct. It's meant to be "Computer says no." I said I've never seen an episode, not that I live in a hole. Chovain 08:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The arguement is that no other awards are covered in this article, therefore to make this award notable you have to add all awards (positive or negative) in an appropriate section. Chovain was correct to remove this information on the grounds that it was added to an already bloated trivia section and also created an unbalanced representation of the show's awards. I hope that clears things up and please could you sign your comments. Thanks. ~~ Peteb16 09:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

With WP:NOT#REPOSITORY in mind, can anyone see any reason for keeping the fansite links? They're unencyclopedic, and any donkey can find them in Google. Chovain 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider them gone. Chovain 20:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - fansites don't really have any place here IMO CLW 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the links to the Australian tour and to the "Little Britain Shop" should go as well. It's just advertising. 81.145.242.40 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and will remove them. The Australian tour site is also linked in-line as a reference (see "Stage Show" section). I'm going to look for a better reference when I get a chance, but in the meantime the inline link is all we've got. Chovain 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Little Britain Logo.PNG

Image:Little Britain Logo.PNG 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No series 4?

I thought we could gather from little britain down under shown last night that there was not gonna be a series 4 as little britain from what I gathered from this documentary is now over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.150.108 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2007

Blacksmith

In one episode, there was some guy who played a muscled shirtless blacksmith that perked Dafydd's interest. Who played that guy's character? I'm hoping someone will know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.137.135.33 (talk) 00:26:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Desiree de vere.jpg

Image:Desiree de vere.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Characters and quotes

I've merged what had become a substantial "Main characters" section with the Little Britain characters article, and trimmed that section down, mentioning Vicky Pollard as a character whose catch-phrase has become quite popular. I've also removed the quotes section because the content can be placed on wikiquote if it isn't already there. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the Characters section was redundant with the Little Britain characters article. Good idea! • Supāsaru 14:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ripping off League of Gentlemen

Little Britain has ripped off many of League Of Gentlemans skits. A lot of Little Britains sketches have stolen a significant number of the Leagues surely this should be mentioned under criticism ?. 78.150.161.172 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if it is sourced. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of scope

The criticism section is out of the scope of an encyclopaedia article. This article should just briefly explain what Little Britain is about and who makes it. Anything more should be put on a fan site or a website dedicated to the show itself. An encyclopaedia has a specific purpose and giving praise or criticism to a television show is not part of that purpose. Unless this section is drastically changed or even removed, I'll have to remove it in the next few days Owen214 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While the section could certainly do with a bit of balancing, it is perfectly acceptable within the context of Wikipedia per WP:MOSTV#Reception. As long as the criticisms are supported by reliable, third party sources (which is the case here), there's no reason to remove it. Pinkadelica^♣ 09:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That manual of style is as open to editing as the articles it governs, so its existence is almost completely redundant. I read the part at your link and that doesn't even support the criticism section here. The section here is just vandalism left over from a prude who stopped by this article.Owen214 (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest opening a WP:RFC on the matter. Pinkadelica^♣ 10:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Britain Down Under

Anyone know of any information about this episode? There is no mention of it in this article. There is some information here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007qb6r —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.89.166 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Britain Abroad, 2006

The section currently reads like there were two seperate specials. Let me know if i'm wrong, but wasn't it one two part special? Also did they visit multiple countries? I thought it was just the island they crash land on.

"In 2006, two Christmas specials were released. In each, characters from the show were depicted as visiting other countries."

I think it should read something like 'In 2006, a two part Chistmas special was released...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigthomas1 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just watched it again and it definately is one, 2-part special. Watching it again brought back all the countries they 'visit' which I had completely forgotten about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigthomas1 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic phraseology: "offended wet wipes"

What or who are "wet wipes"? Were they right or wrong to be offended? The author should not take sides here. I will replace the phrase with "viewers".11:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthordare (talk • contribs)