Talk:The IT Crowd

Second Series Start Date

Although imdb says it is going to start on the 5th of January, it is not in the RadioTimes guide. It is not in the guide up to the 8th of January. I will update it once it appears in the guide (2 weeks before the broadcast date). Brejc8 13:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ain't it supposed to start in February? Anyone have any news on that then? -- FND 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Its definitely not starting till late spring :( according to [1] and http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds41012.html 172.201.252.120 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use "Spring/Fall/Autumn" in encyclopaedia articles. Not everyone lives in the northern hemisphere... --ozzmosis 12:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that as this refers to a UK release date it would be clear that it is a northern hemisphere spring.Georgeryall 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sroaudiences.com/ is now offering tickets to see it recoreded in feb. So definatly a second series! Georgeryall 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The first three dates on the site are Friday 30th March, Saturday 14th and Friday 20th April 2007 for filming the UK version. Richard Ayoade is in both versions so I wonder if the US version will be filmed before or after the UK one. Brejc8 09:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I went to yesterdays recording, this seriese is going to be a good oneGeorgeryall 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the date of when series 2 was broadcast in Australia. It said the 16th of April 2007 - before it was screened in the UK. I know this started on the 16th April 2008, and have updated it.

Apologies

Apologies for accidentally replacing this page with another for a shot period on January 09th 2007. It was a mistake when I pasted the page script into the wrong tab in firefox. I put it back as soon as I realized. I hope no one was effected by this short lived problem. --Josh3276 18:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Telephone number "spelling"

The trivia section and section on "Calamity Jen" both feature the 'new' emergency services number. To my mind, there are three reasonable ways of writing this number out. The first would be to simply write it without spacing (01189998819991197253); the second would be to write it out with spacing as shown on screen (0118 999 881 999 119 725 3); the third would be to write it out with spacing that matches how it was spoken (0118 999 88199 9119 725 3). Personally, I'd be in favour of standardising on the second version - but what is the consensus? Marwood 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) I favour the last one, seeing as that's how its spoken. Also, should it be 'advert' instead of commercial, because we don't say commercial in the UK. And I don't think it is a fake advert - it is 'real' in the context of the show, like the anti-piracy ad in the second series. 139.184.30.135 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The "fire" scene.

Could it be a reference to Pratchett's Going Postal? Specifically Moss' reaction and Stanley's reaction.

I have read the book, several times, but cant think of what stanley did during the fire, something stupid like make tea or sort pins wasnt it? Lovefist233 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Available online in almost real time

Is this worth mentioning? Nearly every TV series is, go and search on piratebay or isohunt, you will find almost every popular TV show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrjeff (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

It was available legally in near real time (at least in the UK). r3m0t ^talk 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that is very different. Possibly the wording needs changing (I'll have a look), or I just need to not read pirating in into such things. Mrjeff 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Theitcrowd.jpg

Image:Theitcrowd.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 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Couple of Things:

Firstly

I have all six original episodes sitting on my hard drive, so if anyone needs a reference from one of them and can't get it anywhere else, leave a message on my talk page. --Audacitor 09:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I really wouldn't advertise that, as that's a great-big copyright violation you're sitting on. _TheIslander 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is only a copyright violation if you distribute it. You can record TV programs for your own use. Sunshine ҈ 18:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondly

Shouldn't there be a Spoiler Template above the "Episodes" section, where it details the plots of all the episodes? I'll put one there in 24 hours if no one gets back to me. --Audacitor 09:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, spoiler tags are not needed - you'd expect to find spoilers in a plot summary section. _TheIslander 11:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What about a character summary section? There are spoilers in there that I didn't expect to find. (See Denholm) 124.190.195.177 01:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It, not In.

I've heard the phrase 'It Crowd' before, years before the show began. Can anyone verify this? ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you know. I've heard it too - in fact I came in here to check if I was alone in this. Refers to the same sort of idea as It Girl. Anyone think we should be changing the bit Scanna 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not without a source. A Google News archive search only turns up a few usages pre-1999, which seem to be split into a few typos and genuine puns, and mostly just a Daily Mirror column called "The It File" that enjoyed using the phrase a lot. Really the paragraph should be tagged as original research if we don't have an actual source for why the series is called what it's called. --McGeddon 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The name is a pun on how the IT people usually aren't popular, whilst the it crowd is. It's been around since the 80s I believe. Plus it's said it crowd, not I-T crowd as in the ?phonetic? writing.Gumdropster 13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on that last bit – as the article says, Linehan has deemed both "it" and "I.T." equally valid as pronunciations. ^† DBD 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Itcrowddvd.jpg

Image:Itcrowddvd.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 03:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural = Trivia?

Should the Cultural References section really be tagged as trivia? Trivia is described as 'lists of miscellaneous information' by Wikipedia guidelines. The cultural references are not random facts about the programme - it's a list of elements of the set etc. which give the overall impression of an IT department staffed by 'geeks'. (That being said, it could be better organised - but I think it warrants its own section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.13.181 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Before removing the tag, you should have discussed it here first. It might not quite be trivia, but it certainly reads like a trivia section. Most the information is not really notable - it's bordering on fancruft. It needs a huge clean-up, and this seemed to me like the most suitable tag for the job. _TheIslander 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If the set gives a good overall impression of IT department realism (and it does seem like this is something that they've put some work into), we should write about that, with only as many examples as are needed to illustrate it, and ideally some sources that confirm that it's approved of as genuinely realistic. We shouldn't just give a sprawling, unordered list of thirty examples and leave readers to try to interpret what they mean and how accurate they are. --McGeddon 22:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out - I wrote the above comment as a query, to find out other people's opinions. I did not remove the tag, nor would I have done without first discussing it on here. I agree with McGeddon that the list shouldn't stay in its current form - it should be rewritten, though, while retaining its own section. The trivia tag implies that the information does not warrant its own section, which is what I was disagreeing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.13.181 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(Although, oddly, according to the page history the tag was removed before I saw it and wrote that comment - how strange) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.13.181 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In which case I appologise for the edit comment - I just assumed it was you. I still feel the section needs rewriting, though, and most of the current examples removed (but not all) _TheIslander 14:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Where the 'cultural references' refer to specific episodes could they be moved into the relevant section for that particular episode. That way the cultural references section is kept fairly tidy with 'reoccurring' references rather than 'one-offs'. Brollachan 07:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've started to tidy up the section, merging a few bits of the trivia into existing points. Brollachan 07:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The page mentions: 'Hokusai's painting The Great Wave off Kanagawa on the background', but i think this is actually a poster by Kozyndan - 'Uprisings' http://www.kozyndan.com/new_portfolio/GR28.html, a parody of the origional, where the ocean is a sea of bunnies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.82.91 (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have trimmed the list down quite a bit, keeping things confined as much as possible to technology/geek references rather than wider references to film, tv, etc. If anyone very strongly feels some of the material I have removed should be reinstated - pull it out of the history and plug it back in. However, I think there are already sufficient examples there now to demonstrate the way geek culture is used in the programme. Marwood 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Season 2, episodes 3 and 4

If these episodes are not out yet, what is the basis for the description of them, and why is there no reference to the source? Sunshine ҈ 18:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Press snippits and Graham's video intros on the website often give information which can be used in the section. On this note, they've cocked up and uploaded the bit for Episode 5 as well, "Smoke and Mirrors" which looks as Moss's inventing skill, which hasn't been covered much in the past (e.g. Stress Machine) ps: yes i reedited because i cocked up and forgot to sign 84.92.14.5 14:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sunshine ҈ 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation and TVIV

I'm trying to harmonize pronounciation on tviv's IT Crowd Article with wikipedia's, The IT Crowd. Pretty sure wikipedia has it right on this point, but the dispute over there has ground to a halt. If anyone's into cross-wiki work, another set of eyeballs on that dispute might be helpful. Sorry if this is outside the scope of the discussion page, I won't ask again. --Thomas B 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is straying away from the article, anyhow the article states "(IPA: pronounced [ɪt] or [aɪ tiː])". The commentary on the DVD also verifies that is can be pronounced either as 'it' or 'I.T.'. Brollachan 13:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References Additions

Despite best efforts, several additions have been made to the Cultural References section since it was trimmed. These changes have been removed for the time being - but I'm going to put them up here so we can discuss if they should be added to the list.

• Other O'Reilly Posters including the Perl Camel.
• Boardgames Ticket to Ride and War on Terror.
• Indie band Guided by Voices

Marwood 07:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth adding the "type Google into Google" reference from the latest episode. It demonstrates a "non-geek" or uncomputer literate person being gullible towards the internet?Jamie jca 16:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual jokes should go into the show's Wikiquote page, not the Wikipedia article. --McGeddon 16:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think its worthwhile adding that during Episode 4 of Series 2, Roy holds up a copy of Assassin's Creed? It's when he's leaving Paula's house towards the end. --Fullforce 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. What does it bring to the article? Marwood 09:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, its possibly an in-joke, as the game was (and still is) currently unreleased. --Fullforce 14:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly? Doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me! :-) But irrespective of that, what does it do to expand the reader's understanding of the way geek culture is referenced in the show? That is the purpose of list and the items already on there do that more than adequately. Marwood 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that the "Hello, computer?" reference from S01E01 isn't on the list. It's a Star Trek reference, am I right? Seems to me like that's a pretty significant "geek culture" thing, and I'd have thought it would deserve a place on this list. I haven't added it, but I do think it should be on there. Jay (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Guest appearances

It worries me that this section is a list of everyone except the main cast, and a summary of their character. Its already a long section, and with further episodes its only going to get longer, but I don't see the point of having a piece on every bit character in there. I feel it should be trimmed down to the notable characters. Alboreto 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Cutting out the non-notable redlinked actors, at the very least. --McGeddon 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

making the article more concise

I've been attempting to do this, by rewording certain sections and removing unnecessary or non-referenced material. I think we need to cut a lot of the page down. The character descriptions for example, are becoming summaries of entire plot points and its just not necessary. They should have a couple of lines about who they are, everything else goes either in the episode summaries (which again, I think are too long on some cases) or lost entirely. If anyone feels like a character needs to have a lot said about them, then that character should have its own new page. -- Alboreto 04:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

third series confirmation?

On http://management.silicon.com/itdirector/0,39024673,39168797,00.htm there is an interview with Graham Linehan and he answers "yes" to the question if there will be a third series of the show. Would you count that as an official confirmation? Could someone please add that link to the article? I'm sorry but I don't know how to do that by myself. --85.231.127.181 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice find! Have added it to the lead paragraph. _TheIslander 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--85.231.127.181 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is: why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.213.118 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interview with the writer / director, sufficient credibility for the (short) statement that "Linehan has confirmed that a third series will be produced". When season 3 episodes actually appear in airing schedules, other mentions as well as the "List of The IT Crowd episodes" article can be updated. -- MiG (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sroaudiences.com/ are now advertising tickets to see the third seriese - I'd say that's fairly good indication that they're going to make it. (The company also did tickets for the second seriese, and i used them - so they're legit). Georgeryall (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The company who actually provides an audience for the IT Crowd is legit... lol, bet they'd love to hear that... _TalkIslander 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Both awards mentioned in the article are just nominations, not won awards.

• BAFTA: See http://www.bafta.org/awards/television/latest-winners-and-nominees,91,BA.html
• Rose d'Or: See Wikipedia article (I couldn't find an official list of nominees... but anyway, it's not listed as a winner)

MoochCH (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the References and you are correct, so i have removed the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.90.142 (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)