Talk:Green Wing

East Hampton Hospital Trust was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 04 January 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Green Wing. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Green Wing has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 8, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 24, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 30, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
November 18, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 4, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Comedy Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1

GA Sweep (pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I trimmed a couple of irrelevant links out, and the article contains a few dodgy reference links (including one dead one: click here to check the links). However, I believe it still meets GA criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Wing (series 1) for featured list

For those interested, Green Wing series 1 is currently a nomination of featured list. If you wish to review the list, please do so. ISD (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD and Scripts

Just wanted to mention that I removed the line

The second script book is to be released on 28 September 2007, according to the Amazon.co.uk.

I've tried searching and can't find any info on the second book of scripts; also I can't find any info on the Wingin' It Convention dvd that was due to be released. If anyone has any further information, that'd be appreciated. :)londonsista | ^Prod 10:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Wing (series 2) for featured list

The second series of Green Wing was nominated for featured list status but failed, mainly because so few people commented on it. It has been put back up again so if anyone wants to comment on it, please do so. ISD (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Machine?

"Unused storylines included Alan having an eighty-year-old wife and grandchildren as old as him" - unless (to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox) there was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine, this storyline couldn't have happened. Possibly this is the reason the idea was dropped, but does someone with a copy of the DVD want to double-check the audio commentary? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing this on the commentary. I think its implied the grandchildren would be the product of his ancient wife's previous partner Tphi (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't the article be changed to "...having an eighty-year-old wife and step-grandchildren as old as him"? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character pages

A few of them are, quite simply, a mess. To use just one example, Karen Ball's page reads more like a fanzine article than an encyclopedia: the claim that she "likes rulers" is (aside from being utterly banal) presumably gleaned from nothing more than the seconds-long sequence (series 2, episode 5, about 34 minutes in) where Joanna Clore attempts an amnesty on stolen office supplies, Karen is caught with a ruler taped to each arm, and her response is "Sorry: I just like rulers" in a feeble attempt to justify the theft. There are plenty of other similar one-liners and throw-away remarks which are presented as facts about the characters who utter them.
To be honest, I question whether some of the characters actually warrant individual pages: if they were trimmed of all the guff and fancruft, they would probably end up as a couple of paragraphs - which could easily be merged with this page. However, I'm aware that there are plenty of big big fans out there, so I'm proposing (for the moment) that people get down to the task of tightening up the character pages first, rather than doing what I'm tempted to do, which is to get out a big choppy chopper and go mad like a... oh I dunno, like a madman in a butcher's shop. Or something. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One year on and no response - I've tagged the offending articles as non-notable: I'm going to give it another two weeks and then propose their deletion ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody's put forward an argument for them to remain, so I've turned the pages for Naughty Rachel, Kim Alabaster and Karen Ball into redirects to this page ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Hampton Hospital Trust

Hi all, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Hampton Hospital Trust was merge to this article. Considering that this is a good article, I don't want to merge the content myself, seeing as I'm unfamiliar with the topic. Just wanted to let you know about this so that any useful content can be merged. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretentious?

Is it just me or do the terms "commedia dell'arte" and "lazzi", which both describe aspects of Italian theatre, not apply here? It just sounds like somebody was trying too hard to drop some Italian theatre into any article they could. Tainted Deity (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - removed ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mac"

Couple of points. Firstly, "Macartney" seems an unlikely spelling - I'm sure "MacCartney" (or "MacArtney") would be a more likely spelling / capitalisation: does anyone know if this is indeed the spelling used for Mac? And secondly, as I've noted in the discussion page for his own article, UK surgeons tend to have the title "Mr." rather than "Dr." - does anyone have a compelling reason for me not to change his title? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti

How is it that a "Good Article" on a Mid-Important rating can have such blatant graffiti ("loltingz" just randomly inserted in a sentence) not only for 9 months, but with 28 non-bot edits being made without anyone noticing? Shealer (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange character descriptions

I'm surprised by the character descriptions as they stand and have changed a couple of them. Naughty Rachel loves sex, but was described as having a "perverted nature", surely a harsh value judgement for a character meant to be enjoying life to the utmost. "Sociopath" was the word given to describe Sue White! There is a remarkable lack of anything suggesting humor in the whole article, and there is a fair amount of editorializing, particularly on the character pages. I know it's been a few years now since the show was on, but it's running in the U.S. now on Hulu and is getting attention, so I may come back and try to improve it a bit if no one minds. There hasn't been any real attention given the article in some time. --TEHodson 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Green Wing. 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 https://web.archive.org/20080925185536/http://www.thetimes.co.za:80/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=667760 to http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=667760

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 08:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Green Wing. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Green Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging List of recurring Green Wing characters

There is nothing here worth merging to the main series article. The very few elements which impact the series plot (which is pretty much just Mac's involvement with the returning Holly) are already covered there and everything else listed here is so inconsequential that mentioning it on the main series article would be completely inappropriate. It should just be redirected. Several of the characters listed here don't even actually appear - Markus Geissler is mentioned in literally two lines of dialogue in the whole series. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has objected in over two months, so I have gone ahead and re-directed the recurring characters list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Green Wing series 1 and series 2

Currently, the two series of this program have their own articles. However, they are relatively short (nine and eight episodes, respectively), and the articles contain minimal context outside of the episode descriptions that isn't already covered in the main article. Therefore, I propose merging these two articles either to this article or to a new List of Green Wing episodes page. My personal preference is the former; MOS:TVSPLIT suggests 50 to 60 episodes as a rough cutoff for a standalone episode list, and WP:SIZESPLIT suggests any article under 6000 to 8000 words does not need to be split (the main article is currently around 4000 words and so would likely remain under the cutoff with the episode list incorporated, especially if the series summaries are subsequently trimmed).

As a note, series 1 is currently a featured list. This does not exclude it from merge discussions – just noting it here since a merge would lead to a procedural delisting. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm not wild about the idea. The Reception sections on the two series are quite lengthy, and incorporating all of the material into the main article would make it a bit unwieldy. I don't really see the purpose of merging the three pages; they're fine the way they are. Toughpigs (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the reception sections are copied in the main article; for instance, series 1 uses a long blockquote from A. A. Gill's review that matches the main article, as does series 2, which also copies a long quote from Cathy Pryor. So the actual amount of new material that would be copied to the main article in a merge is smaller. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]