Talk:Coupling (British TV series)

Series 4

Actually, Coupling has not finished in the UK. Series 4 is about to go into pre-production as we speak!

Who has described it as "the funniest thing since Red Dwarf". Is it an informed opinion?(I'd doubt it); and does their opinion matter? My opinion is that it is NOT, and my opinion doesn't matter either. Mintguy 11:13, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've updated the article mentioning that Coupling may return to the BBC in 2004. I've read speculation on this from various sources, but I can't find anything up to date that definitively says that a fourth season will be filmed. Anyone have a reliable source? I've also read that Jeff (Richard Coyle) may not be returning for the fourth season due to scheduling conflicts. - wonko 00:10, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Removed that bit about it beeing the funniest thing since Red Dwarf because thats completely POV and irelevant. Saul Taylor 09:31, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Coupling is over

!! unfortunately this great series is over, Jeff murdoch left the show at the end of season 3 and never made a reentry and this made the producers add a new character called oliver.... well!!! was not that funny and it is safe to say that this great show ended!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, it's unlikely there will be a season 5, according to Moffat. He has suggested that they might be a Christmas special to wrap things up. The JPS 22:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where to find quotes?

Does anybody know a good comprehensive site with quotes from the series? The oficial ones are woefully lacking... --Malyctenar 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stations around the world

I don't think it's necessary to list every station on which the show has aired. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and certainly not in such a prominent position. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might be right but I still find that pretty interesting. Maybe countries list will do, though.Ori 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted passage: "The show also airs in the Czech Republic on CT1, in Australia via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Comedy Channel, in Catalan Countries on public channel TVC, in France on the Comedie Channel, in Finland, in Germany on ProSieben (Season 1-3) and Nickelodeon (Season 1-4), in Belgium (Flanders) on public channel Canvas, in Italy on MTV Italia, in Spain on People + Arts, in Sweden on SVT 2, in Denmark on DR2, in Turkey on CNBC-e, in Argentina on I-Sat, and in Israel on Channel One." Xiner (talk, email) 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge US article

There's no reason why the short article on the US version shouldn't be merged into the short article on the UK version. WindsorFan 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was confusing when they were both in one article, that's why I split them. Especially when it came to describing the characters & the actors -- SteveCrook 09:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the history. It was even more confusing when people started adding categories like ones for it being a "cancelled series" which applied to the US version but not the British version -- SteveCrook 09:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Confusing"? How is this confusing? [1] I don't mean to sound rude but much of the US article is OR ("which likely explains why the BBC would choose to let NBC work on Coupling and why NBC would attempt such an adaptation.") or unverified ("which NBC was reportedly hoping to position as a replacement for Friends"). The Cold Feet article has a section on its US remake which gives a comprehensive summary of the series without the need to make a new stub. The same can be achieved here. WindsorFan 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's confusing because when they were merged the following categories were applied at various times. 2000s American television series, 2000 television program debuts, 2003 television program debuts, 2003 television program cancellations, American programs based on British programs, BBC television sitcoms, NBC network shows, Television flops, Television programmes set in London, Television series by NBC Universal Television. Which of them applies to just the UK series and which to just the US series. That plus having both sets of casts in the one article. It was just easier & neater to give them each their own article. What's the advantage in merging them again? -- SteveCrook 23:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at some featured music articles you will see that they include cover versions in the same article, and the US series is just that as it is a word-for-word remake. Those music articles double up on categories without confusion. My point is you have two articles, neither of which are very long and one of which has little chance of being expanded. WindsorFan 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but none of those seem to have such a wildly different reaction. The UK version of Coupling was a great success. The US version was a total flop (so it seems). That means that you would have the two sets of categories saying the opposite things about the same article. I think it's the categories that are the biggest problem with re-joining them. That's why I split them. -- SteveCrook 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least beef up the US article! I'm going to cut some OR from it. WindsorFan 11:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave that for someone that actually saw it or knows about it. I don't know much about it. Just that it was a flop and that it needed to be separated from this article -- SteveCrook 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As a Coupling UK fan, and a US citizen, I'm embarrassed by the US version. I don't think the two should be associated at all, but since the one was based on the other, there's going to be associations. That said, the US one was a horrid flop (didn't even get through a half season), and the UK was unbelievably good. The two should not be merged. Bouncehoper 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I too would say a merge would be a problem. The US version had a substantially different fate than the UK version; despite the nearly identical scripts, they turned out to not be very alike after all, at least in the public mind. And, as SteveCrook mentioned, they have rather different Wikipedia categories as well, and having them together was already tried and found messy. --Closeapple 04:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed ref link

Link removed under WP:EL "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article."...

...and because the link isn't working (getting a 404 error)...

--Berean Hunter (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Only, External links is a different thing from than WP:REF and WP:VERIFY, which explicitly require quotations to be sourced. --Malyctenar (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coupling.jpg

Image:Coupling.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of post-series story

The post-series story section appears to be in dispute. See the comment from an annonymous user on User talk:The JPS#Coupling.

The JPS, can I ask you to please clarify why you believe that this is copyvio? --Deadly∀ssassin 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I have experience of getting articles to GA or Featured status, so I have a good knowledge of what the community thinks is acceptable. I removed the text for two reasons, as clearly explained in my edit summaries, 1) reliability, and 2) copyvio.

• Outpost Gallifrey forums are not considered reliable. This issue has been discussed in several GA and FA debates.
• I have quoted Moffat in an OPG for another article. The reference was rejected at GA level.
• The forums require registration, which is frowned upon at WP:RS
• It is unacceptable to lift a substantial chunk of text. This is a copyright violation. A non-free rationale would cover us for a portion of the original work, but it appears that Moffat's treatment has been lifted in its entirety. If we somehow manage to get away with the ref, then it needs to be condensed.
• The article needs improving a lot. I intend to get this to GA status. For this, your help in supplying reliable sources would be appreciated. A lot of stuff will need to be removed or rephrased though. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion obtained. [2] The JPS^{talk to me} 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your explanation simply doesn't float with me. It smacks of bureaucratic dogma, hiding behind policy and status. I couldn't care less if it wouldn't pass a peer review if you and EyeSerene are these supposed "peers." Information should be shared. This ending to the show, written by Moffat himself should be shared. Your strict adherence to meaningless and arbitrary policies is beyond foolish and beyond inflexible, in my opinion. In my eyes, all you have achieved here is to disfigure this article.

However, I realize I cannot change this, as I don't have the time or the inclination to make it my task in life to make sure Wikipedia meets some stuffy set of parameters. You can. So, I guess we at the Doctor Who Forums will be the only ones to get the complete story. Sad. I'll make sure Mr. Moffat knows. Maybe he can get it out there some other way. Clearly we can't expect Wikipedia to actually be complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.29.59 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice rhetoric. As for as 'suppressing information' is concerned, we're talking about a hypothetical ending to a sitcom, not secret activities of a government... Also, if you would like information to be shared... this article is more likely to be included on the CD and DVD versions of Wikipedia at GA status. It would almost certainly be 'suppressed' at its current 'start' status. Incidentally, Mr Moffat is a little too busy at the moment to care about this issue. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• With regards to using a website that requires registration as a citation, Wikipedia:External_links#Sites requiring registration says "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." The link was being used as an inline reference and registration to those forums is free. However, when I accessed the link a few weeks ago I discovered that the forums were not accepting new members (I don't know if this is still the case). This makes the link unverifiable as there is no way to access it; there is no mirror of the website, nor is the "post-series story" accessible in hard copy at a library. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's my opinion that the addition of portions of the text do improve the text. Policies are there to aid in the creation of solid articles, in this case I don't believe that they are improving the article, and this case would be one which falls under WP:IGNORE. I agree that copying from the text wholesale is not the best use of the information and will attempt to trim it down when I get back from work. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's freely available, make it freely available. Get Moffat's permission and post it somewhere, then footnote it out. Otherwise I'm stuck trying to find it buried in Dr Who fandom, which I hoped to be well and truly free of many years ago. Don't think I won't do it, though!Zonemind (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Took me a bit longer than I expected as real life intervened. None of the original text is reused, so no copyvio. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand criticism

(please excuse my bad English)

Since I am a fan of the series, I may not be entirely objective to what can be read in this article. But I don't understand why all of the characters are described in such diminishing words, together with the whole series. The relation to Seinfeld is just mentioned and yet the parallell is obvious; if you are not able to relate to these everyday single life frustration, you are not able to understand the humour.

Comparing it with Friends is unfair. The only thing it has in common with Friends is that there are 6 main characters. The characters of Friends are way too prude. There are no obvious parallels between the characters, and there is the age difference.

What I miss - and what I considder as central in the series are the different philosophies if the men in the series, and to some extent the women, too. The basis of the series is the dialogue, the endless discussions of how men could understand women och vice versa. The lengthy and untraditional, but often rather intelligent observations of many aspects of life has been narrowed down to (in the case of Jeff) "constant sexual frustration, ridiculous stories and fantasies about women and sex". Those kind of comments could hardly be considered as objective.

The central place in the series is the pub - I would estimate 30-40% of the time of the series is spent in this pub (including entire episodes), and it is not even mentioned in the article. It is here where the different aspects of life are being discussed, and where most of the action begins or ends and sometimes even takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.172.131 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

American version word for word copy statement

"Unlike most American adaptations, this show was intended to be a word-for-word duplicate of the British version,"

i don't think this is a true statement, many american shows have been based around or completely copied from brittish tv, and very very often, at least the first episode or pilot has been a word for word copy, i think the office was, and i can recall hearing of others that are the same but i can't give them as examples, perhaps should be looked at--81.23.56.12 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the US version is not a word-for-word duplicate of the UK version anyway. —Ming Hua (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coupling (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110523235709/http://www.gallifreyone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70744 to http://www.gallifreyone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70744

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)