Talk:Skins (British TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hmm...

What is this? it reads like a press release. --Bobyllib 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

True, someone has copied the official press release, but as theres no other information available untill the show actually starts, I'm inclined to simply leave it untill alternative information can be found.--Fabio^Talk 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, that's called a copyright violation and should never be allowed in Wikipedia regardless of the status of the program. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To be pedantic, press releases aren't copyrighted, so pasting a press release in, whilst bad form, is definitely not a copyvio. Certainly, under English law, it'd be considered fair dealing; I'm sure a US court would uphold that a press release can have no expectation of copyright and would be fair use. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This does read very much like it was written by channel 4's marketing department which would make sense as they have been hyping this thing up to hell.--Josquius 12:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Press releases are copyrighted, since almost every written work is copyrighted at the moment of creation. Whether it is fair use to use the content of them is a debated subject, although it would be rare to see it prosecuted. See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:News_release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.185.146 (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know the song they play to skins?

Its in the article under trivia, "Standing in the way of control" by The gossip.

Woohooo Thankyou Thank you!!! Hugs Tracey xx

Your welcome.--Fabio^Talk 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted fan site link.

I deleted the fan site link as it wasn't the official fan site or anything... the link was :

:Skins fan site

cheersFlowerSniffer 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't really understand what's gone on here as ALL the external links have been hacked/altered to point to another skins fansite, one that is considerably less official than the deleted link, and what constitutes an "official" fan site anyway? Idumea 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I adding a NPOV tag, because it seems a little too "yay, I heart skins <3".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamesspwns (talk • contribs) 27 February 2007 09:52 UTC

Doesn't seem that biased to me, anything particular you are not happy with? MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it seems a little like a fan site right now. There is no mention of the criticism it hAs had. --Neon white 15:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What criticism? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See the citated criticism section --Neon white 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace and other web 2.0 stuff

Should it be noted in the article the produces use of web 2.0 in particular myspace to give the characters a presence outside of the show itself. I am unsure whether this is the first time it has been done in such a calculated way before the show has gone to air.

I think it would possibly be a good idea.

Although the exact definition of web 2.0 is cloudy, that's not really what it means. And no, tie in websites and social network profiles are not original to this series, although they were prominent. I have no idea about US stuff but in the UK for instance, the refurbished Doctor Who series used dozens of tie-in webistes. AndrewJDTALK -- 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

US version

Why isn't there an article on the US version of the show that airs on FOX? 77.97.230.248 12:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy

Skin (TV series) is unrelated.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I have read a lot of criticisms for this show, but the ones listed here are no some of them. Radio Times, BBC and many well respected review sites have talked about Skins... so why is the majority of the criticisms section filled with only a small minority of opinions? And since when, if you will excuse the language, was Stewart fucking Lee a credible critic of ANYTHING at all!? JayKeaton 07:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be brilliant if you could develop the plaudits/ criticism section. Re Stewart Lee: i believe he started his career as a journalist. His comedy is topical, and he writes comedy drama. That's enough for me. Plus he's criticizing it as an audience member, not even in his professional capacity. It doesn't take much to qualify as an audience member. Amo 18:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The laughable thing about the criticisms on this page, is that they seem to be from people who don't actually know what is going on with young people, claiming that this sort of thing doesn't happen, when it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.75.222 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree with the above whats more laughable is that theres no other section about how positively skins has been recieved by the majority of people. 86.158.85.25 (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The reviews are largely mixed with most liking some aspects but being heavily critical about others. There certianly is no real evidence that would allow us to say they have been mostly positive. --neonwhite user page talk 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is not a negative word. It covers positive and negative aspects of reception.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate Music?

Can we put the music in skins on different pages to the episode, such as one big page with all the music from series one, organised by episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.196.165 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should.

It would definately be a popular page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.87.22 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Payrole

I Think we need a citation for that part,If not it should be deleted. And i dont think that it is very relevent to put that nick hoult gets more because he was in about a boy. DeadWood 20:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Airing in Australia

by 'summer' do people mean this summer or last? The year would be helpful since it's a bit ambiguous about whether it had aired or not

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.192.89 (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Skins airing in Australia in the summer. In Belgium, it aired in the summer of 2007, which was this past summer. Next summer would be called the summer of 2008. Itsjoshyo (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But in australia Christmas is in december... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve37 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I should certainly hope that Christmas is in Australia is in December ^_^ I think he meant to say that Summer is in December in Australia. JayKeaton (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OH so hang on! Do you mean it'll air in December then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.192.89 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how you got the idea from the article that Skins is airing in the summer in Australia... I may be mistaken but I don't think the article ever mentioned this. Also, please sign your talk posts ('~ ~ ~ ~' without the spaces and quotes). Itsjoshyo (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Age news - Skins Farsouth (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Show started airing in Australia on the 7th of January on the SBS Network, it's on every monday night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.94.106 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

International section is cluttered

I started the International section, but it seems to me it's getting a bit cluttered now as so many people have added more channels.

Does anyone else think a chart would work well in this section? Itsjoshyo (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Skins is currently on Monday nights on SBS, episode 1 aired this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.23.77 (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why has the International section been removed? Itsjoshyo (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a TV guide. This has already been discussed here and the consensus is to delete these kind of lists. - kollision (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make a remark on this way handling things, maybe its goofy but in the German version of Wikipedia and many others keeping an eye on international relevance has been a big claim, that what Wikipedias idea of the big should be, why waste this kind of information? Please consider this fact again, a debate is never set to an end, at least if there is a claim like a consensus...as it seems is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.28.25 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why's it called Skins?

Hm? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably some reference to Condoms.. With Skins being a slang term.. —Reedy Boy 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Skins are role up paper too, they say Skins refuring to role up paper in serie 1 episode 1, but the name could be in refference to both this and condoms. Chris as I am Chris (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Skins is most likely a reference to the paper used to roll a joint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.44.54 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's almost certainly the roll up papers. Tony refers to them as Skins in the first episode, hasn't been said since.

FreemDeem (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The title could also refer to the fact that each episode gets into the "skin" of a specific character (or characters). Of course this isn't necessarily relevant to the article so we'll leave it at that. :P Sillygostly (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely called skins because of the slang term for joint rolling papers. If you look on the DVD cover for the first season "Skins" is written on a joint paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.213.180 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an interview with Bryan Elsley, which I will find he said that one of the reasons the show is called Skins is because every time the characters change it like they are shedding there Skin like a snake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benv-b92 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Should something about this be added to the actual article? Itsjoshyo (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Episodes devoted to Abigail Stock and "Posh Kenneth"

is this even true? I'm not sure that it is! Also, anyone know any ratings for series 2? Series one got 1.2. million on E4 for first episode and 1 million on channel 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.192.89 (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep it's true, they spoke about it in a (video) series 2 press releases just after series 1.

It can't be true. at this stage (25/4/08) there are only 3 episodes left in this series. episode 7 is jal's - previews can be seen on tv and youtube; and episode 9 is cassie's - stated by hannah murray on an official blog on e4's website. which leaves episode 10 - the final, which i doubt would be devoted to either or both of them. if series 1 is anything to go by, it'll be an ensemble episode. Aflcfcfan (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Skins Userbox

SkinsThis user is a fan of Skins

I thought some of you might like this.

Series 2 first eisode ratings

The article mentions only ratings for the E4 premiere on mon 11 feb. The program was advertised before it aired as showing the following thursday on C4, a more mainstream channel, I presume normally attracting a larger audience. I note the ref given is dated the tuesday after the initial airing, so obviously does not comment on how well it did two days later. It seems now to be a habit by some TV companies to air a show on a minor channel shortly before it appears on a main one. Anyhow, it is not at all clear to me this means the viewing figures were 'more than 500,000 viewers down on its series one premiere'Sandpiper (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

actually on every channel bar C4 it advertised the premier as being on E4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benv-b92 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, and it was on e4 first. Hardly any people tune into the channel 4 show, which has far lower ratings (considering it is on a mainstream channel). It's more of a 'repeat' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.192.89 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to Skins

I realize that there are a little under 150 pages, redirects and user page links that direct to Skins (TV series), but seeing as Skins just redirects here anyway I am wondering how people would feel about moving Skins (TV series) to Skins? I would have done it myself, but like I said there are 150 links to this page, of which probably about 60 or 70 are mainspace links. JayKeaton (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that =) Moving it to Skins sounds good to me. 99.236.50.65 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Dekimasuよ! 05:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Skins (TV series) → Skins — he page without parenthesis simply redirects to the page with them, so the parenthesis seem to be pointless. Would make things much easier and streamlined if this move was put forward. I don't think anyone would even notice, but I can't do it myself as Skins has a brief edit history. — JayKeaton (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Skins has redirected all over the place. From edit history, not uncontroversial proposal. Callmederek (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The word "skins" is more likely to be used for plural of skins of animals than for skinheads and suchlike. I have redirected Skins to Skin (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Former cast members

Is "Former cast members" really necessary? I propose merging them with parents. After all, most parents only appear in the max of a couple of episodes anyway.

And it makes it as if the wikipedia entry is attempting to keep absolutely up to date with the series - which is constantly changing; those parents will always have had a part in previous episodes, even if they don't necessarily show up in future episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.56.253 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

They were originally Merged, then a mod separated them and your point about keeping up to date is invalid as partly because it's been done pretty well so far and partly because that's Wikipedia's job. Benv-b92 (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well basically, It's only the parents in the "former character" list and there is no other characters who are not parents mentioned in that section (i.e. Angie) The Parents category is only a list of the actors that play the main character's parents, and the majority of them are on the front page as they are well known actors. Also, How do we know that a certain parent has left the series, Cassie's parents for example? Do we know for certain that they have left the show for good. Also, a good part of these kid's parents willmost likely be seen in one or two episodes, and are only used when needed. If you wanted to seperate the characters with the former characters in the better fashion, why not do it in the "Characters in Skins page" which is linked to in the Characters Section" of this page? 69.28.232.214 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)samusek2

Series 3

proposal of series 3 section on skins page: series 2 has almost finished airing in the uk, and pre production has begun on series 3 - auditions etc. there is also much speculation on the future of the current cast and the changes being implemented for series 3. hard info and facts r hard to come by, but perhaps a new section on series 3 would be a good forum for the colaboration of facts from credible sources. Aflcfcfan (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this... that is, if the information posted is official and comes from e4 itself, rather than speculation from fans. Angel caboodle (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is a good idea, if nothing else to rubbish the rumours that there will be a complete recasting as there have been various sources (I think Digital Spy would be the most appropriate example of this) saying that the third series will not have a new cast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benv-b92 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to skinsis.com, two of the new cast members have already been cast. My edit has been deleted so mayby someone could take care of it. 90.134.49.243 (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A fan site like Skinsis.com is not a viable reference, only news websites, the channel 4 website or Skinslife.com (an official website set up by the show's producers) can be used for references. You might also be interested in iknowing tha skinslife will be the first place the new cast is announced..Benv-b92 (talk 12:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to MTV's Undressed

Having just seen a few episodes of this show for the first time, I think it would be appropriate to include a "See also" link to the very similar Undressed (TV series). Thoughts? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast Reformatting

As I'm sure many of you will have noticed the cast section has been reformatted so it is now in paragraph from, in stead of list form does anyone else think it should be changed back as it is easier to read.Benv-b92 (talk) 18:08, 07 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be reverted back to list-form. The family members, however, which have also recently been formatted into paragraph-form, should stay in paragraph-form because they aren't as important as the main characters. Angel caboodle (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the table I made for the characters page was added to the main page. Just a personal opinion but I think on the main page the paragraph that was there before looked better, but if people prefer the table for the main page that's fine. I also noticed that the order of the characters were rearranged. When I made the table I ordered it alphabetically by surname. I am guessing that the current order is to do with how prominent the characters are? Whilst I agree that this may be slighty more useful, the order the characters go in would be a bit debatable. For example should Sid go before Michelle? That was why I did it alphabetically. Just food for thought I guess.--Sanders11 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

the present order is the order of prominence as dictated on the official Skins website and as such is not debatable.Benv-b92 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks for explaining--Sanders11 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hello, first I'm very happy to see such a beautiful voice about skins. Then I would like to inform you that an Italian channel (Jimmy on Sky platform) has starting to airing the second serie from 19th June 2008. MTV Italia will broadcasting the second serie starting on next September. thank you very much for your attention, bye. massimo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.125.176 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Season vs. Series

Seems to me that the two words are used differently through the entire article. At least here in Canada, "series" refers to the entire program (comprised of multiple "seasons"). I understand this is not so in the UK. Because of this, the whole article has been flipping back and forth between the two meanings.

Should I edit it so it's more uniform? Any ideas? Itsjoshyo (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As this is a British program, it should really be using British terms, in Skins and other British programs it is marketed as series 1, series 2 and so on in most countries. Chris as I am Chris (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:ENGVAR, the term used should be "series". Although Canada and the US may use the term "seasons", the article is about a British television show, and as such, should follow British spelling, jargon, and other terminology. - k|e|n|g - t | c - 20:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the situation is not as clear-cut as the above responses suggest. "Season" was very much in use in British TV circles in the past, with many series being sub-divided as them - Doctor Who is probably the best-known example. Calling each new run a "series" is very much a modern phenomenon. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Skins 3 cast

the skins season 3 cast has been posted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black stars kill (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add information about it, then. Just make sure to source your claims!! :-) — Kendra Michele — 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction, Soundtracks and Generation 2

I added some information to the Intro section, as requested on the To-Do list. I figured mentioning Dev Patel specifically would be of interest due to Skins and Dev being mentioned a lot lately during Slumdog Millionaire interviews. I also added when the second series started, and a bit about Generation 2.

I think a section for Soundtracks should be added as well. Also, things are going to get really confusing around here when series 3 does actually start -- a lot of this article is written referring to series 3 as in the future. The Online presence section is still almost entirely about generation 1. Just throwing some thoughts around here... we're all going to need to pull together after the 22nd of January =)Itsjoshyo (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Keiran MacFoeinaiugh

In series 3 episode 1, Ardal O'Hanlon's character's first name is spelled "Keiran" on the whiteboard behind him, but "Kieran" on the closing credits. Excellent continuity... :-( DWaterson (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The complete first season

i realise that it is only a tiny detail, but skins is rated R18+ in Australia, only the first season though. i would fix this myself apart from my complete lack of knowledge of editing wiki pages :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.96.209 (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Series 4

Skins official E4 blog has confirmed that series 4 is happening [1] and before you question the blogs validity, note that E4 have seen fit to flash this up on the main page [2] magnius (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, sounds good. Was trying to check if it was an official blog. =) Thanks for finding a good source for this. DP76764 (Talk) 18:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI Pauline Quirke will be playing a new character: She will play an interfering detective (name to be revealed). Her first filming day is August 4th http://pqacademy.com/menus/main.asp?QTopMenu=blank&QSubMenu=Latest%20News&QOptionItem=blank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Skins party

"The programme has given rise to the term 'skins party', referring to a debauched night of heavy drinking and recreational drug use." Is this worthy of comment? to me this seems to just describe any party attended by people between about 16 and 30 years old, it seems the article this comes from is written by someone on a barely notable site without any real concept of what kids really do. 218.215.185.4 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if you find a reliable source that discusses it. DP76764 (Talk) 15:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

how do you meen only if i can find a reliable source? my point is that the source this is based on seems neither reliable nor acurate.218.215.185.4 (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's already in the article. I thought it was something you wanted to add. DP76764 (Talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The term was originally referenced to Urban Dictionary bofore the current rather up-tight reference existed, so the latter almost certainly got it from here in the first place! Nick Cooper (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So does this mean it isn't noteworthy afterall? urban dictionary is probably more likely to be acurate but perhapse not a reasonable source? 218.215.185.4 (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Russell T. Davies and "controversy" regarding explicitness

Given that Davies created the groundbreaking Queer as Folk, making reference to his reaction to the series, which features extensively in his otherwise Doctor Who-related book, The Writer's Tale, is justified. When I have time I'll go into the book and pull out a direct quote and add it to the article. On an unrelated note, should there be discussion over the controversy -- or lack thereof -- regarding the show's explicitness? The North American DVD release includes a testimonial from a reviewer stating that he wishes American shows had such guts. Certainly the sex scenes would probably end up getting NBC or CBS heads thrown in jail if they ever showed them, never mind the language and drug use! Has there been any backlash in the UK over this, or is Skins (along with Rome, The Tudors, and other shows) an example of UK TV and audiences being more progressive? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rome and the Tudors are co-financed by American studios. Skins is no more explicit than Nip/Tuck, I'm afraid you're under the impression it airs on the British equivalent of NBC or CBS when it doesn't, e4 is more like FX or the Sundance channel. It's not that controversial, there's no reason for it to be, it airs after the watershed, you have to register to watch it online, and DVD's are only sold to 18+, none of the actors did nude scenes until they were 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.207.147 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. FX etc are pay tv "premium" subscription channels, E4 isn't. It's a free terrestrial channel. And also the series does air on Channel 4 later in the year which IS the British equivalent of NBC/CBS/ABC etc. 87.113.122.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Online Presense

I have deleted everything that was previously there and summarized it in a section called "Videos". Everything I deleted is easily accessible on the List of Skins Episodes wiki page. Also, I added a "Social media" section. Hope you all approve! Itsjoshyo (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Who put up the "excessive amount of intricate detail " warning?

I do not comprehend what this warning should relate to on this page. Compared to the Wikipedia pages of other popular TV series, there seems to be no more details here than somewhere else. Same goes for "language" warning. --84.178.63.202 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was User:ChimpanzeeUK, I've asked him to come and explain. If not, we'll remove the tags. Pretzels^Talk! 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

perhaps it was used in lieu of a spoiler alert since the page describes details that people who have not seen the entirety of the series are NOT going to want to know and Wikipedia seems to have some absurd abhorrence of spoiler alerts. 76.203.124.48 (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 - Cook link

The link to James Cook redirects to captain cook, and not the characters page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.122.102 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Emily Fitch's name was missing from 2nd gen picture note

I added her in! Jubilee♫clipman 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MTV Latin America

MTV Latin America broadcast this show. http://www.mtvla.com/tv/skins/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by HC 5555 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth and Abigail need to be ADDED to the First Generation

On e4 both Kenneth and Abigail are among the list, ergo, part of the First Generation, and I recommend that they should have an area created about them, as there is alot of information about them both.--Bartallen2 (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review Begun

Hi all,

I have started reviewing this article against the WP:WIAGA. There are some preliminary comments on the review page Talk:Skins_(TV_series)/GA1.

They should be a useful guide to improving the article further. Well done on all the hard work so far. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Unfortunately there hasn't been substantative attempts to really bring this article up to GA level - It's been on hold for nearly three weeks. Unless someone steps up in the next few days I will regretfully have to fail it. --Ktlynch (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot

It seems to me that the "Plot Synopsis" section is too detailed, especially in the most recent series descriptions, where the writing is in-universe and unstructured. Plot details (per WP:MOSTV) do not belong in an overview, and if they belong anywhere, they belong in the individual episode summaries. Unless these issues are dealt with, there is no reasonable way that this can become a Good Article. I'll take a closer look at this and the GAN once I've had some sleep, but at present, sorry, but no. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree especially after accidentally reading the death spoiler for episode 407. No reason for these heavily detailed summaries. --Xero (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Such is television, unfortunately. I'm thinking that there will be no way to really make this as good an article as it can be until series 4 finishes; List of Skins characters got so bad with overload and vandalism that it needed to be sprotted and is only now recovering some normalcy (and it still needs gutting out). It'll be worth checking some other G/FA TV show pages and see how they handle these problems. Kinitawowi (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not impossible. Most of the material needed is already there, though a couple of new sources are required for reception and production. The plot & characters need to be trimmed rather than added to. The more organised and complete an article is, the less vandalism that comes around, and it's easier to spot when it does. If editors have specific comments please leave them on the review page. The lead section should be re-written per WP:LEAD, for the plot section see WP:MOSFICT. Since there has been some improvment in the article I'm going to leave it open for a few days. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

DVD Season 1 Music

Wiki says "Of particular note to R1 audiences is that the cast ensemble performance of "Wild World" that appeared at the end of the series is completely missing from the release." However I've got the DVD playing now (UK Edition) and Wild World is definitely there!

• The information in the article is correct. The UK Edition is Region 2. — Pretzels ^Hii! 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it's not correct. I have the actual Region 1 DVD's, and they clearly sing Wild World at the end. Was it changed at some point in a reprint? But of course I can't say anything because it's original research. Yay bureaucracy! --Buddy13 06:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.138.8 (talk)

Third Generation characters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello all. On the E4 Skins page on Take Part the users of E4 who went to Skins auditions and had call-backs have talked about the new characters (see - http://www.e4.com/takepart/auditions.html?resource=urn%3Aarticle%3A8dad34ccc4f7f98520d1edae0375146b&commentSize=smallComment&pageTitle=Skins+5+and+6+open+auditions+&anchor=comment). They talked about the characters names and I put in the future collum what I found out about the new characters. People changed bits around and the latest one was this:

"The names of some of the characters in the Third Generation are suspected to be Nick, Alo, Matty, Franky, Grace and Mini. [13] Nothing else is known about these characters or what main character from the Second Generation will return."

The [13] is the link to the website up above. The piece about the new characters keeps on getting deleted because it's what the deleter called "unreliable". Yes it is unreliable but why would all the members on E4 create some names for fun to try and trick people who read it? I know there are all these Wikipedia guidelines but people who delete stuff from page and say it's unreliable or not helpful or adding to the page mostly use the Wikipedia guidelines to cover up that they just don't want anything new on the page they are trying to protect and don't like it when people change things. At the end of the day we are all Human and we all do this.

The link up above IS the most reliable source and if you don't trust it now then read it from the current page and back and you'll see that the people are talking about the characters they have been picked for by E4 and their names. Now Wikipedia always tries to get the best bits, it's like a huge newspaper and always needs the best news first, so trust the users as it's unlikely any of them are lying about the characters so can whoever it is who keeps deleting the paragraph stop doing it and read the page and help me and the other people who found out about the names of the new characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read policy. We do not accept blogs as reliable sources. If it's added in again without such a source, I'll protect this article until there is. Rodhullandemu 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about. Your like Russell T Davies when he was the head writer for Doctor Who from 2005-2009 and everything had to be his way and he had uncredited re-writes on most of the scripts. And I'm not trying to ruin the article "... I'll protect this article until there is.". Jesus what is it with you people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why write "The names of some of the characters in the Third Generation are suspected to be..."? If you have no faith in your own source, I see no way you could defend it. Similarly "Nothing else is known about these characters..." doesn't convey any information and is therefore useless in an encyclopedia, which is a work intended to fulfil that function. If you still think it's a reliable source, however, you could ask here. Meanwhile, verifiability is not a negotiable policy. Rodhullandemu 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The RTD comparison is a bizarre one. (Off topic, but isn't uncredited rewriting the job of the executive producer? For consistency of tone, and continuity, unity of vision, etc.?) I'm sure Brian Elsey used to do it too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, since RTD, as Executive Producer, had some sense of overall control, or input, if you prefer, in a creative process. He was not bound to reply upon reliable, third-party sources, as we are here, as we are merely collating that which already exists and presenting it to our readership. To be honest, some of the plot devices in Dr Who over the years have been shoddy and inconsistent, but we don't have that luxury here. It's sources, sources, and sources; and we should be tough on sources and tough on the causes of sources. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What the Hell? I delete this because its got nothing to do with Skins now as there is no reliable source and I get a complaint saying that it would be impossible for people to understand whats' being sad when all I did was delete all of this and it's only me and you talking? All I did was to try and help wikipedia but whenever I do so and whenever I update anything it gets deleted even if it's important to the article. How is deleting this Third Generation discussion thread going to be confusing to other members if I delete it? Nothing is important here and like I said it was only me and you talking and won't affect anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave you a link to the guideline. There are three editors taking part in this thread. Although deleting a discussion doesn't remove it from the history, it's considered impolite to remove threads once a conversation is taking place. On the other hand you might find another editor sees this thread and provides a reliable source for the content you are seeking to add. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day in the near future; that won't happen if the thread is invisible. However, I'll happily archive this thread for now. Rodhullandemu 16:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tried to add citation

But there's an error message. Link seems to be working fine though.Scampfarmer (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a page for...

...the upcoming American remake yet? I think news is starting to seep out, they've announced that they've replaced Maxxie with a female version (or so it appears)92.236.151.82 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's an article for it yet, no. There are quite a few credible sources online that are reporting news of the US show, so I suppose a new article could be created for the show. — Kendra Michele — 22:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New characters

Hi

Shouldn't we change the list of cast members to the new people from Series 5? (Dakota Blue Richards, Freya Mavor, Jessica Sula etc.) I just think the time is ripe to do it now, seeing as Kaya, Luke and the rest of them won't be in any more. George.millman (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. — Kendra Michele — 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

'emancipated minor'

I was just wondering why this term has been used to describe the character Chris in the Series 1 synopsis. I feel it is an American term that has no meaning here - It's not unusual for a 16 or 17 year old to live alone in the UK. They don't need to legally aquire a special status and would not be regarded as 'emancipated' *kate* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.235.194 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who wrote that Chris was "emancipated", but I feel that it's important to state that Chris is living on his own without parental supervision. Although it may be common in England for teenagers of his age to live by themselves, this is not common around the world, and people from countries besides England may read this article. — Kendra Michele — 02:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the article stating that he lives alone - in fact I changed it to say exactly that. However 'emancipated minor' is specifically an American term - it would not be widely understood by a global audience, and it does not apply to the character who is British. I think to state that he lives alone is sufficient - this article isn't meant to be a discussion or explanation of British culture. For example, in the USA it's common for high school students to drive wheras around the world, the driving age is usually higher. A Wikipedia article about an American film or programme that showed a 15 year old driving wouldn't feel the need to explain this. And as a non American viewer I'm perfectly capable of working out for myself that some things are different in the US! If a non British audience can accept that the teenagers in this show are promiscuous, drink, take drugs and commit crimes without explanation or comment then it shouldn't be too hard for them to understand that one of the characters lives alone. And one little thing - sorry to be pedantic but the UK comprises Wales and Scotland as well! I'm a Welsh girl - where I live is 40 mins from where Skins is set, and I visit Bristol often. The cultural issues I raised apply to the UK as a whole, not just England. Kate—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.235.194 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with you changing the word "emancipated". I looked over your edits, and they were sensible to me. :-) — Kendra Michele — 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

US Version in Baltimore

I removed the part about the US version taking place in Baltimore. No source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.172.40 (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I wasn't the individual who added that information to begin with, I have re-added the Baltimore, Maryland statement with a source from The Baltimore Sun. :-) — Kendra Michele — 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We want to know the names of the songs we hear.

 We want to know the names of the songs we hear
 and, since series 5, this link tells us:
 
   www.E4.COM/skins/series5/music.html
 
 E4.COM/skins' Kyle Lynd, the "Music Supervisor",
 is in charge of the site... it's no random blog.

 Mr. UK·Ex·Pat ( a obvious pseudonym ) won't allow it,
 he reverts me every time I try to add it.
 Jeff Relf (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted you twice on the basis that I don't think that your addition is notable, and I suggested that you raise it here for further discussion, which you have. Talk pages are the appropriate places to discuss content disputes. As for my user name, of course it's a pseudonym, I doubt that there is anyone who actually has "ukexpat" as a first or last name. Editing with a user name that is not one's real name is pefectly appropriate, see WP:USERNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is specifically that information you would like, Jeff, then that link as you pointed out does provide it amply. To make use of it on Wikipedia, however, it would need to be more than a list; making an interesting representation of its content, in prose, would be the goal of any editor choosing to use it as a source. Here's a sentence, off the top of my head: "Lynd chose to use "SONG" by "BAND" in "EPISODE" (2011), because she thought it complimented ACTOR's mercurial nature.[1]" -- this kind of style and level of focus would be ideal, I should think. But, alas, even this kind of citation best belongs in discussions of the episodes themselves (for which, frequently, there just isn't enough information to justify a full write-up). The main problem is that this music blog provides a LOT of information, information which couldn't feasibly or usefully be organised in the body of the main Skins article. But a "Music" section is — quite certainly — not a bad thing. (I would argue that this page would fail to get a GA or FA without one.)

But, consider this: surely the main points to communicate of a show with a 5-year-run and various spin-off properties, if you bear 'due weight' in mind, are the following:

1. what is the ethos behind Skins' song selections?
2. What kind of artists are attracted to Skins, or do how the producers come across the songs?
3. Have American producers taken the same line in making the MTV adaptation?
4. what effect has being used in or to promote Skins held for artists, such as The Gossip?

This line of write-up could make for a lovely, two or so, long paragraphs. The Skins article needs a lot of work, and getting that done requires the principles of what you want the article to look like when it's "good" to be foremost in your priorities, and to let go of seeing the article as an obliged repository for information (which it's not).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The key issue here is whether the use of music in this programme is notable, ie has it been the subject of comment by reliable sources? If so, then by all means include a section about it, but it will need more sources than just the Music Supervisor's blog. Although what he says there is of interest, it does not make music selection notable. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 You two ( Mr. UK·Ex·Pat and Zythe )
 have not changed my opinion in any way.
 
 Ideally, every episode would list the songs.
 People want to know, I want to know.
 For series 5, only this link does it:
 
   www.E4.COM/skins/series5/music.html
 
 Jeff Relf (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then let's wait until some more users comment on this discussion and we have a consensus, that's how things work round here.  – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Mr. UK·Ex·Pat, please stop altering what I write here.
 Jeff Relf (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am just changing the formatting so that it looks easier on the eye. But if you want your messages to stand out, that's one way of doing it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 I ·always· use <PRE> ( the HTML tag ) because it's monospaced and
 it gives me control over the white·space ― WikiPedia is no exception.
 Jeff Relf (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, feel free to lack the common courtesy to use the formatting everyone else uses.... Nick Cooper (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 unAltered white·space predates <PRE> and <Code> ( HTML ).
 You ( Nick Cooper and Mr. UK·Ex·Pat ) can't read it ?
 
 If so, use Ctrl·Wheel to zoom in or out.
 ( i.e. with the Ctrl key down, notch the mouse wheel ) 
 Jeff Relf (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but were there any logical holes in what I said earlier? If you want to look, then the website you're already using already exists. The Skins article should not list every song from every episode. It is not a list. It should aspire to look like these: The Wire, House (TV series), The Simpsons, etc. It shouldn't contain unruly lists. That's not just aesthetic taste either, that's a whole heap of policies about how to write articles. Also, please use a clearer formatting; it is actually very subtly slightly hostile to not be 'engaging' in the discussion by having your words attempt visual pre-eminence over everyone else's.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Zythe, <PRE> is the format I prefer, always;
 it's ·not· about the "visual pre-eminence" you mentioned.
 
 I looked at the "Music" section of the "The Wire".
 While that's good and worthy, it's not:
 
   www.E4.COM/skins/series5/music.html
 
 When you hear a song you like, you can go there, "music.html",
 and find the song ― I wish other shows had that.
 People like me go to WikiPedia to find this info.
 Jeff Relf (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's rude not to obey the formatting rules that we all do, whatever your personal preferences are. And no you can't, because Wikipedia shouldn't be synthesizing the content of that in the first place. You can, however, follow the link you already have for the information as soon as they update it. It could conceivably go on a "series 5" article if there was one, and it could be used in a source for any hypothetical episode articles, it just doesn't belong on the main Skins page: it has no place. It's pretty straightforward.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Things left out

It says something about there being things that were in the British show that are not in the American show because of less strict rules. Is it actually saying things were left out, or what is it saying? 75.27.38.167 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unbiased statements.

Under Other Media it states: 'An edgy, insightful, sexy and revealing back story for generation 3 of the best teen drama on TV.' Just seems like its been taken from an advert for the book. Petaarr (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure someone just copy-and-pasted that from the manufacturer's website, which they're not supposed to do. I'll summarize it and take out the fluff words. :-) — AngelCaboodle — 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

in the 'American adaptation' section, "most find the UK version far superior"

Not glaring, but it does smack of bias: "...even among those who viewed the U.S. version first, most find the UK version far superior)." This comes across as biased even to a reader like me who (a) has only seen the UK version, and loved it, (b) is someone who can't think of a single UK original where I've preferred the US adaptation (in most cases thoroughly disliking the latter), and (c) have otherwise gotten the general sense that the intent of the point is true. I think it's trying to convey a scenario that is factual, but it needs to be expressed (and preferably sourced/referenced) in a more objective/encyclopedic way. As it stands, it sounds like a "take my word for it" kind of assertion.66.68.143.131 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fcc Regulations

I changed "where it has been subject to significantly more controversy than the UK original despite the show becoming less racy due to American FCC regulations." to: "where it has been subject to significantly more controversy than the UK original despite the show becoming less racy due to MTV's corporate censorship practices." because the FCC doesn't control the content of cable or satellite channels. MTV has the right to air whatever content that they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.121.94 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I had reverted your edit because I thought that it was the FCC who regulated the show, but you're right: the FCC has no jurisdiction over what MTV airs. I'll revert my edit. :-) — AngelCaboodle — 04:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Skins (TV series) → Skins

I see that this has been discussed before, but I think this is definitely the most common target when typing in "Skins". Also, I don't think many people are looking for the film when they search "Big" nor are they searching for Elvis Presley's doctor when they type in "Dr. Nick". Also, Cash Machine and Gold Digger don't have brackets even though some may be searching for what those terms actually mean. Despite this, none of these have brackets. Unreal7 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there is some indication for primary usage. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good indicator. "Cash Machine" and "Gold Digger" are different than Cash machine and Gold digger, so those usages are distinguished from the common name in a way that Wikipedia's technical limitations won't handle for a one-word title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not always - a South Park episode which was originally entitled Crème Fraiche was moved to Crème Fraiche (South Park), same with another episode called Trapper Keeper, moved to Trapper Keeper (South Park). I've noticed that some users think the Skins Game is the most common target when typing "Skins", but that's not true. Very few people even know what that is, whereas the show is an award-winning program which is popular worldwide. I doubt anyone's going to be searching for the plural of skin when they search "Skins" either. Unreal7 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support definitely most common use. 86.146.120.160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.120.160 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There are enough variations of "skin" and "skins" to justify disambiguation. It's also useful if only to clearly distinguish it from the American series. Additionally, how can you back up the claim that "Very few people even know what that is" when referring to the Skins Game? The quick recognition of the TV show is not instantaneous for all. NJZombie (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  When you google "Skins", the first set of results you get are almost all about the UK teen drama. Unreal7 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, for your argument, notability is not dependent on Google searches. NJZombie (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not see any evidence that the TV series a primary topic, when compared to other subjects such as the "Skins" game, or even the "Skins" football team in the Washington DC area.[3][4][5] I support the status quo of it remaining a redirect from plural to the "skin" disambiguation page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  In response to what you said, the show is a worldwide phenomenon.[6] And one of those other two things isn't even called "skins". Also, the U.S. version lasted a single series and you find a link to it in the UK version. Unreal7 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is difficult to conceive of any benefit from such a move. What is the proposer thinking of? Look at the page to which Skins currently redirects: Skin (disambiguation). Look at the listings, including many occurrences of the plural "skins". Drop it, and take a hard look at the real world and the needs of real readers, OK?  ☺

Noetica^Tea? 00:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. First of all, this is complicated by the fact that the dab page to which Skins currently redirects is for Skin (singular), and most of the entries on that page are not ambiguous for Skins (plural). But enough are ambiguous for the plural usage to raise the question about primary topic, and I see no compelling evidence that this use is primary for Skins. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose first, it is the plural of skin, and frequently used in context where you deal with animal hide or pelts. second, it is a commonly used name for a type of sports tournament involving money. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page Skins is already is in used of disambiguation page of the word Skin, which a link to the show is apart of that disambiguation page. Anyway having the page as Skins (TV Series) will idenitify this page as a wikipedia page for this television series. TheDeviantPro (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Franky Fitzgerald

I know it's not to do with this specific page, but if anyone is able to can they try and somehow merge Franky Fitzgerald and Franky Fitzgerald (Skins)? It was first requested over a month ago and it's clearly the proper thing to do. There's no point in having two pages of exactly the same thing, right? Unreal7 (talk) 18 April 2012, 15:53