Talk:Nathan Barley

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nathan Barley 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

Comedy Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 (assessed as Low-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Momus[edit]

"...and supposed by some to have been inspired by the postmodern performance artist Momus."

I've removed this passage as a) I've never heard this claim made anywhere else b) it's weasel-worded c) it's unreferenced and d) it's potentially libelous. FrFintonStack 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed at the end of the first sentence of the "Second Series" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.245.73 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POFV[edit]

"The series features two other central characters, siblings Dan (Julian Barratt) and Claire Ashcroft. Dan – an instantly recognisable Brooker point-of-reference – dislikes everything Nathan Barley stands for, while Claire seeks to highlight the plight of the inner city's homeless and drug-dependent. Ironically, while Dan sees a clear distinction between himself and the "idiots", he's frequently forced to compromise his own ethics in order to earn a living, and seems to be fighting the dawning realisation that he may actually be the very thing he despises. At the same time, Claire, who clearly wants to see herself as socially responsible and philanthropic, ultimately only seeks to further her own career. This sets the scene for an unusually open-ended, and certainly introspective, satire-bordering-on-social-commentary."

Seriously, have any decent wikipedians ever seen this article? Keshidragon (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The writing isn't up to much, but it is a pretty accurate summary of the characters and their motivations/actions. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree this section= dreadful POV. Anyone who ever bothered to tarry near an 'O'-level English class would know that you can't summarise characters objectively (beyond listing appearance) and an encylopedia at least aspires to be more than just a 'lit-crit' blog.

It's utterly stupid having this section- or did I miss this being a nascent-post-post-modern joke??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.236.146 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours of a second series[edit]

I've altered the reference to the Nicholas Burns' interview in Loaded magazine. It just said "the October edition" so I've added "2008" - I'm assuming this is the right year but I'm not a Loaded reader so it's just an educated guess on my part. Please feel free to alter this if I've got the year wrong Dom Kaos (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]