Talk:My Family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A couple of points...

This series MAIN characters are loosely based on those in the series in the 1970's Called "Butterflies". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.79.190 (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC and UKTV refuse to re-broadcast the series four episode 'Blind Justice' due to an upheld Ofcom complaint. Although no reason was given, it is likely that was considered offensive to blind people.

This is highly dubious. Ofcom don't, to my knowledge, uphold viewer complaints without giving a reason for doing so, and in fact they issue regular bulletins describing these reasons (see [1]). Also, simply upholding a viewer complaint does not necessarily mean that a programme may never be shown again.

By employing a wider number of writers to brainstorm jokes for each episode, the BBC has been able to maintain a consistent and relatively long-lived product without having to wait for a single writer to produce more material.

It's not clear how employing more writers is supposed to result in a more consistent product (I would have assumed the opposite if anything). 217.34.39.123 13:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening

Looks like it is time to bring this to Talk. The

this. I for my part apologise for not bringing this to talk earlier. It would have been a lot easier than us having an edit war. So I apologise for that, but I firmly believe future series are crucial in opening. In the same way as we would say when it finished airing, we should say when it will next air.--UpDown 15:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Please discuss here. You attitude now is getting very frustrating, you are presenting now arguments and seem unwilling to discuss. What part of "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" is unclear. Without future series, the lead is not capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. It is also logical to have it in the opening paragraph, before a description of the programme.--UpDown 14:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph is all I'll be writing here, since I've learned not to waste time trying to reason with article owners. The lead (as is) doesn't flow. How does mentioning a forthcoming series, followed by mentioning the show's creator in the same paragraph, make sense? I didn't move the forthcoming series information out of the lead, I just rearranged it. That aside, the
Talk 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not pretend to own the article, but I do want it to look good. And your version didn't. Frankly I don't like the excuse "I've learned not to waste time trying to reason with article owners" - that is not an excuse to continue a edit war when a discussion has been started. I have changed the lead, and I hope this meets with your approval. You were correct that the Fred Barron sentence didn't particularly fit but I believe it does now. The link clearly says that the start and end airdate should be in the lead. My Family has not got an end date yet, so to make this clear we should say when the next series will air. Otherwise someone reading the lead has no idea whether its finished or not, and that is a breach of
WP:LEAD (as quoted above).--UpDown 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for that! I really should read what I write before pressing "Save page".--UpDown 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"programme"? i believe that all the articles should feature american english, as it is spoken by the majority of english-speaking people in the world - and quite so by people for whom english is a second language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.206 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How nice that you think that. Luckily Wikipedia is far more sensible than you are and use the English that is correct for the article, and in this it is UK English.--UpDown (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that the bastardised "language" which is American English is spoken by the "majority" of the English-speaking world - and in any case, more popular does not by extension mean more accurate. Smurfmeister (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary section ... retitled as "History" section

To remove the whole section because it's "unnecessary" makes no sense. More often than not, there is something that can be taken from it. UpDown is demonstrating for the 543rd time his article-ownership syptoms, and thus rubbing people up the wrong way.

Talk 18:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

My God you really, really need to get over this hatred for me, frankly I'm get so fed up of it. It's pathetic. Just grow up and make constructive comments, and be neutral, not just have a go at me. This section is totally without precedence in Wikipedia. The
lead should contain a short summary of the article, all other in information should be referenced (nothing here is, or even correctly formatted/linked etc) and within the correct sections, not in one get huge section. Ask any TV editing expert (Collectionian perhaps) and I'm fairly sure they will agree.--UpDown (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And that constitutes vandalism how exactly? -
Talk 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Because he has re-added a totally unacceptable section to an article, despite me saying in an edit summary "rem. completly un-needed "Summary" section". He just reverted this without saying why, or coming to my talk first. --UpDown (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a neutral observer it seems to me that the section has merit albeit not as a summary. Yes it needs citations and some cleaning but so does most of wp. I have reinstated the section but titled it "History" which is basically what it is; I have no doubt it will be improved in the coming weeks.
Abtract (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It needs more than re-naming, it needs removing!! All the information about each series and number of episodes and when aired etc already exists at List of My Family episodes - it does not need to be repeated here. Take away all of that and you have some interesting cast information. This needs referencing before being putting in, and should go the "Characters" section. I am, again, removing for the reasons I've just said. The information on cast, if reference provided, I would be more than happy to put in the characters section. --UpDown (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it was a totally unacceptable section at 21:56 last night, but just under twelve hours later you're more than happy to put in the characters section? Hmm, yep sounds like pure vandalism to me. -
Talk 09:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It remains a totally unacceptable section. Parts are repeated, the useful parts when referenced can go in "Characters" section. But when referenced and not in a "Summary" section. Please read what I say and try not to be petty and use every attempt possible to attack me. It's getting very tiring.--UpDown (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Characters" section didn't have a single citation from the article's inception in 2003 until November 2007 (see here for the version on November 15, 2007). But now there's a sudden urgency to have references? If we're comparing apples to apples, as you like to do,
Talk 09:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
A lack of references is not an excuse to add more stuff without references. New additions should have references to avoid the article getting worse in terms of quality. Please explain why all the info regarding episode broadcast dates & times is needed when it is all on the episode list article. Frankly your behaviour is clearly biased because of your hatred of me, and I feel that is a great shame.--UpDown (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could suggest that you keep to a discussion about content rather than personal abuse, it may help resolve this issue; believe me I kmow how debilitating it can be to stray away from content. Now, as to content ... imho it would be best to leave the history section and build on the ideas in it. There is no harm in mild repetition, especially from daughter articles, if it helps the flow of the article, and this seems to help. As to the lack of citations, the wikipedia way is to challenge such info with the "unreferenced" or "fact" tags rather than removing them ... this latter action should be reserved for vandalism which this clearly is not.

Abtract (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

"Mild repetition" - are you serious. 90% of it is repetition from the episode list page. We have episode list pages for reasons of size and there is NO NEED to repeat information of that scale. That, I believe, is a WP policy. This does not help, its frankly an awfully written section. Any useful information, when referenced, can be inserted in the "Characters" sections.--UpDown (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After You've Gone

It is related to My Family, both shows have the same writer and is in the exsact same style, as in they are both comedy's about a family [and they are both unfunny, signed a slightly bored jerk]. Please don't remove it again, it's alright if you other guy's dislike After You've Gone but you could just keep it there, for my benefit and anyone else that is a fan of both. I mean, it's not doing any harm is it? .--LeighMichelle75 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about
2point4 children, is that classed as related? It is similar in many ways. Avid viewer (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree, changing now 93.186.31.215 (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a spin-off, has never featured any crossovers, and is therefore unrelated. Smurfmeister (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

The critical reception doesn't really "say" anything - and have critics ever warmed to this series? Bob talk 08:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It states briefly that critics were negative to begin with but viwing figures were strong and have remained that way. maybe it shouldn't be called 'critical reception'?

My Family Online

It is the only fansite on its subject. It is home to the only My Family forums. It doesn't have its own page and therefore needs to be mentioned in this article. If an encyclopedia doesn't include information on every aspect of a subject then what is the point of it? The Music Collector (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Collector? I bet this is your website, stop advertising it, no-one cares... it has no place on an encyclopedia article, I have no doubt it is a well constructed website, but "mildly popular" does not mean 24 members, for a tv show that probably has viewers in the millions. 86.13.56.62 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website still deserves an external link as it has been referenced in many places. The Music Collector (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in the minority. -
talk 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am actually the owner, producer and editor of My Family Online, and while I appreciate that maybe it doesn't desrve a full paragraph on it (though that in itself is debatable) I just cannot understand why an extrenal link can't be used, as some of the information contained within this page is actually sourced from MFO! Myfamilytv 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, the problem with my family online is that it is in fact the "only fansite on its subject". Fansite being the operative word there. Most of the My Family news attached to the article is speculation -or- completely unsourced information from the forums. Even if you do get ahold of a script early or hear through the grapevine that an episode is entitled something or another it does not hold up as valid enough to source on wiki until the official showrunners or the beeb make some sort of comment about it, or the episode airs. An external link to My Family Online should not be on the My family page. 76.116.164.15 (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben

Both this article and the List of My Family characters state that he loves his family, yet having watched the show regularly I don't see any evidence of that being the case. He has a very negative attitude and view of every family member featured and mentioned, rarely praises any of them and only helps them reluctantly, due to the fact he feels he should. He often shows that he wishes he had never married and never had children. He resents his family; he feels trapped and downtrodden. He longs for his freedom, and wishes he'd never given it up. He didn't marry Susan because she was the love of his life; it was because she was pregnant by him. As in the real world, it is common for someone to marry someone due to producing a child with them as a result of not bothering to use contraception, when one would otherwise never have married them. Avid viewer (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen in the show, Ben does love his family and has a very tough type of love. It's subtle, very British, and ironic, but, despite his outwards display, I notice in the show that he does actually love his family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.187.150 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the vast majority of episodes of My Family, and I have not seen him show the slightest bit of love towards anyone. He feels very frustrated by his situation and finds his family to be a bitter disappointment to him. A source states that he loves his family, but that same source wrongly describes Abi as his niece. It is unambiguously stated in the show that she is his first cousin once removed, hence the writer of the source article is not very familiar with the show. Ben is a
misanthrope who is incapable of loving anyone, except perhaps himself. 188.30.217.240 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

2010 end?

Do we have any evidence that My Family will end in 2010? Usually it a series per year, so I would have thought it would end in 2011 sometime? --Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Marsh

I do not want to get into an edit war with Dannyboybaby1234, but he keeps undoing my edits where I removed the character of Scott Marsh, who has only appeared in one episode of the current series so far, with 5 episodes aired. How does this make him a main character? can we make this a discussion before its changed again? 93.186.23.200 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this note to the article -- "Scott Marsh is not currently a main character, and not even a recurring character yet. Please leave him off the list until he has been in a few more episodes. " Hopefully this helps 93.186.23.198 (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott has now been in another episode, though only briefly. He is not living with the family, but with Michael in his own flat. I would not say he is a main character, but please can we add him to recurring characters now? Thank you George.millman (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say put him as a recurring character, tentatively for now though. It can be changed at end of series if he's only been in two. So yea a recurring character for now EditorGuy07 (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Rachel Harvey who portrayed Fiona, Michael's girlfriend had a much bigger role than the Scott Marsh character - this should be kept in mind. EditorGuy07 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's that much bigger. Rachel has appeared in more episodes than Nathan, but I'm not sure Rachel's character was much more important. She appeared in three episodes - one of which she was just slotted in for no reason, one of which she was important in but was only in one scene, and one which was the final episode of the season, so they needed a more interesting scenario. Scott has been important in one of the episodes he has appeared in, and the fact that he has been brought back once makes it fairly likely that he will be brought back again, if only as a recurring character (otherwise there would be no point him being in more than one episode.) Also, he has been instrumental in the whole 'Michael coming out' thing. George.millman (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reoccurring? sounds to me that Mrs Columbo had more of a presence on her husbands (US) mystery series --Qazwiz (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Weston

I've removed the reference to her character name of Charlie being a possible reference to 'The Upper Hand'. It's pure speculation, and an equally (if not more) likely explanation is that Charlie was chosen because it's a unisex name. Plus isn't it far more significant that Diana Weston was Robert Lindsay's partner for several years? Smurfmeister (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which episode is missing in Complete Series 1–11 box?

The Complete Series 1–11 includes 119 episodes ("All episodes are available on DVD..."):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Family#DVD_releases

But the episode list contains 120 episodes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_My_Family_episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.111.239.36 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever win any awards?

As of today it doesn't talk anything about it. Surely it must have won many awards for it's fantastic editing technique (and I'm being sarcastic - if you've watched the show then you'll know why) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

section:Writers must need editing,

i doubt that in four years the creator only wrote eight episodes yet the section says exactly that.... maybe per year, but unlikely series total... Someone got any facts to contribute? --Qazwiz (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Family. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gay characters

When a TV series includes gay characters (or lesbian, bisexual, transgender), the category identifying the inclusion is added to the article. It does not render the series a "Gay" or LGBT series. It only acknowledges that the TV series includes L, or G, or B, or T characters. In regards to this series:

Son Michael has a surprise in store for TV's My Family by revealing he is gay
Sara Nathan
15 April 2010
Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1266078/Son-surprise-store-TVs-My-Family-revealing-gay.html
Pyxis Solitary talk 07:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with it, and it may not be the deciding factor here anyway, but please see
WP:DAILYMAIL1. MPS1992 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on My Family. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synopses copyright violation

Looking back through the article history, these synopses were added in more or less their current form by an IP editor in 2009. While the synopses paragraphs are all written perfectly, the image captions the same editor provides to go with it are ungrammatical and badly spelt ("Peter is best know for guest star roles in various shows, in both comedys and dramas") and their attempt to describe the characters in their own words is similarly poor ("Even at such a young age, he's shown a massive intelligence which at times even rivals (and at times even beats) Michaels.")

So I suspect this person pasted the synopses in from somewhere else. Searching the internet for jokes in the text like "Just as well as most of his life seems rather like pulling teeth." turns up DVD descriptions of the series in question on Amazon, using the exact same words. Not every Amazon listing has the same full paragraph, but this was 11 years ago. My guess would be that these descriptions were copied from some other retail or listing site that isn't showing up in Google results any more. --

talk) 10:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi
Lord Belbury
, Thank you for coming here, The second diff where the IP trys to put it in their own words makes it plainly obvious this is indeed a copyvio, Thank you very much for spotting that,
I sincerely apologise for reverting you,
I've reinstated the tag, Not sure how one can reword it - seems it'd need to be completely rewritten ?,
Anyway thanks again for spotting that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. It's possible that it was taken from a freely usable source (an explicitly public domain fan site, another Wikipedia article that was deleted or improperly merged), but I can't find any evidence to support that. It certainly needs rewriting from scratch, if we think the article needs a season-by-season summary like this. Which I'm not sure it does, really, as the "Cast and characters" section already covers a lot of the same material about arrivals and departures and character development.
Either way,
talk) 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It certainly could've been but guess we'll never know lol, I've gone ahead and removed it, As you say the characters (and the episode list) includes the information there so it's pretty much redundant to that, Anyway thanks again for coming here and for your help much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revival

There's been plenty of speculation regarding a possible revival of the sitcom over the years. Robert Lindsay, Zoe Wanamaker and Kris Marshall have all been questioned and given different answers but the idea has floated around. The show also aired again on BBC One during the Covid-19 pandemic which further led to speculation regarding a possible revival. The three aforementioned actors reunited during a BBC One Show interview to discuss the show airing once more on BBC One during prime time.

I feel as though a section should be added to highlight the possibility of a revival of the show. Sadly many of the interviews with the cast are from tabloids, and I know Wikipedia frustratingly frowns upon using those for references. But what I was able to gather from non-tabloid sources I will list below if someone wishes to create this section, otherwise I will try to at some point.

My Family returning to BBC One during the Covid-19 pandemic - https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/reality-tv/a32618406/one-show-my-family-star-swears-reunion/ - https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a32267626/bbc-one-my-family-return/

Interview, Robert Lindsay and Kris Marshall supposedly discussing ideas for a new episode - https://www.bt.com/tv/comedy/my-family-bbc-iplayer-robert-lindsay-interview Noah-x3 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Set against that, Zoë Wanamaker has admitted that she was not happy with the quality of the writing, saying that she and co-star Robert Lindsay even refused to film one episode because it was so poor. For Lindsay stated that there's some "real dross (in the scripts) and we're aware of it".

So, how bad does a TV comedy have to be when its main stars question its' quality?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.83 (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about Sam Kelly in "Guest cast" section

In the "Guest cast" it notes that "My Family has used several actors from various past hit sitcoms" and includes several examples. One of these is "

Captain Hans Geering in 'Allo 'Allo!. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Family&oldid=1206223611"