Talk:Little Miss Jocelyn

Untitled

Oh dear...does this show really merit a page on Wikipedia?. I've seen two episodes now, and this show must really represent a new low in British comedy. No amount of canned laughter rescues it. At least when Lenny Henry did black stereotypes they were credible, likeable and funny. 160.84.253.241 10:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a television show warrants an article doesn't depend on popularity of the show, it depends on how notable it is. It's in the same league as Tittybangbang. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't in the same league as Tittybangbang, it is a very different show. Tittybangbang is less of a 'conventional' sketch show. It has a different, more bizarre sense of humour (definitely that Mortimer touch), has depth and develops its characters, and I would say the script is cleverer. Little Miss Jocelyn tends to be more loud and outrageous. I thought that series 1 was funny and Jocelyn Jee seems like a nice person, but I wasn't so keen on series 2, because, although it had its funny, witty sketches, many were just over-repetitive, weren't developed and were sometimes just plain disgusting, using only gross out humour or large amounts of distasteful language to get laughs. Don't get me wrong, Jocelyn has some really funny sketches, but as a whole, I much prefer Tittybangbang, although I would say its a show that people should watch more than one episode of, as it appears to be a grower. I would also say that the quality of acting in Tittybangbang is remarkable - there is some real talent in the cast. CyberWiki (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

^ ^ DON'T WORRY UR PROBALY JUST A STUCK UP WHITE PERSON WHO HATES BLACK SHOW, GET STUFFED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.234.77 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, perhaps the show would be funny if we weren't paying for it. I think that the wikipage should be written later, after the show either completes its run or is axed mid-series - whichever happens soonest. 160.84.253.241 11:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I love this show. Nothing has given me as many laughs as this in a long time. However, some of the characters (Ignatious and Florence namely) are REALLY grating. Some of them always make me laugh though, like Paulette and Jiffy. I for one hope this show lasts for a long time. :) (Cipher Destiny 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

This show makes me laugh too, although, I guess British comedy has gone downhill. But we can always watch the classics such as 'Only Fools and Horses' on UKTV and on VHS/DVD. Whoever wrote this article certainly knew the information accurately, I think it's only fair that we let it stay, it can't do any harm. JJMan 07:50, 08 September 2006 (UTC)

"Whoever wrote this article certainly knew the information accurately". Well I think that most 'meeja' articles are written (and very closely monitored) by the 'meeja' types that work for the company, so they will 'know the information'. Just try putting a critical comment into the article and see how quickly the article reverts to saying that the show is the most screamingly-hilarious comedy classic of all time. 160.84.253.241 07:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like that can be put in the article, and nothing like that is in the article at the moment. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy. _{J Di}^talk 07:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this article. All the information seems to be correct and it is just stating basic facts about the show. Like all forms of entertainment, not everyone is going to like this show, but not everyone will dislike it either. Keeping within Wikipedia's NPOV policy, whether this show is to anyone's personal taste or not shouldn't determine whether it meritsit's own Wikipedia page. I don't see why the page cannot be written until the series has ended either. Any new information that comes out about the show, including whether it completes its run, is axed or recommisioned, can be added when that information is released. PCM22:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it dark up there? 160.84.253.241 07:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Overlength

Is it possible that this article deals with the show's characters in too much detail (compare with similar shows: 3 Non-Blondes and Lenny Henry in Pieces). The show was a brave (but failed) attempt at 'off-the-wall' comedy, and a new slant on combining 'Little Britain' lunacy with some clever caricatures of black British society. But; the very enthusiastically-written character descriptions are (some would say) actually funnier than they appeared in the show itself. Although many loved the show of course, many others (including existing JJE fans) were greatly disappointed with it, and the bulk of reviews were very poor.

Now the article risks appearing as an advertisement for the DVD. 160.84.253.241 10:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How popular something is shouldn't affect the length of an article. Wikipedia is not here to write articles based on something's popularity, it's here to give people facts. The character descriptions aren't meant to be funny. If you think that some are, please edit them so that they are more neutral. I also do not understand how this article risks appearing as an advertisement for the DVD, would you please explain that to me? jd || talk || 10:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the length of the article should be determined by the show's popularity, but rather its significance. This article goes on at great length about a show that (in a year's time) will be almost totally forgotten. JJE has done far better work than this in the past, and if her television career can recover from this cyanide pill, hopefully she will return with something far better. I think that the show's failure was less JJE's fault, and more a result of a good script being poorly-translated to the screen.

The article also suffers from a condition common among Wikipedia 'comedy' articles: namely 'Explaining a joke in sufficient detail as to kill it completely'. See The Goon Show; Little Britain; Titty Bang Bang and Monty Python's Flying Circus for glaring examples. To my eyes Lenny Henry in Pieces gets it about right, describing the show's essential 'shape and size' (as an encyclopedia should) without going on ad nauseum about its contents.

Also, (although I cannot be sure without looking at the series again and comparing the screening dates to the Wikipedia article) I fear that the article was, at least partly, written from behind the camera as a vehicle for self-publicity. The article appeared very early in the run, and (I think) gave detailed descriptions of characters who had either not even appeared on the show yet, or had not sofar 'revealed' enough of themselves to allow such an in-depth description. I will wait a few weeks for the DVD to appear in the dumper at the back of MVC, then look again.

I note that you do not understand how the article risks looking like an advertisement for the DVD. Perhaps you are standing too close. 160.84.253.241 11:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the article risks looking like an advertisement for the DVD because there is only one mention of the DVD, and the article only says when it was released. I can't speak for other users that have edited the article, but I am in no way associated with the BBC or the programme Little Miss Jocelyn.

A lot of articles about television shows have extensive sections for each character, and some characters get their own articles. I don't know if you're aware, but Little Britain has a separate article for the characters, and some of the characters themselves have separate articles. The fact that this article is about a comedy show doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is here to present the facts, and also is not censored. It is not here to give readers so little information about each character that they might not understand. If there is a problem with the amount of detail that each character's section goes into, this should be discussed here so that other editors can say what they think.

The article was created on August 18 2006 ([1]), and the only thing that was in the article was a copyright violation [2] from here until I got to it. As you can see here, when I made my first edit to this article, it was hardly an attempt to promote the show; I created a stub. I'm sure any person trying to promote something would write much more. Information that I added about characters that had yet to appear on the show was added after looking at the BBC minisite. I'd also like to add that I watched the show via Internet streaming, and new episodes were available on the website a week before they went to air on BBC Three.

If you have any other problems with the article being off-balance, you can add to it if you can; I've added all that I can. jd || talk || 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Accepted: The first appearance of this article was a copied promo until you rectified it. This is obvious after checking through the article's early change history and your contributions (Australian Big Brother?...Please seek help :-) Apologies if you think I was saying anything else. I didn't know that the episodes were available on internet streaming before broadcast, (no wonder nobody watched it). I am more familiar with the BBC's 'Listen Again' facility, which runs for the week after broadcast. Should the article still be in the present tense?...or is that just wishful thinking? 160.84.253.241 07:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed what I think should be in past tense to past tense, but I haven't added an air date for the last episode as I don't know when it went to air on BBC Three. Maybe you could add that? jd || talk || 09:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Episode 6 went out on the 26th September as scheduled, (although I didn't watch) but I don't remember any mention of it on UK TV. Despite exhaustive pre-trailing, the BBC completely stopped mentioning the show after about the second episode, and the show just seemed to 'end' without any ceremony. Certainly no 'Last chance to see' etc. If there was a seventh show, it should of course have gone out on 3rd October, but it didn't. I only assume that only six episodes were made and the BBC haven't binned the rest. I know that the series DVD has been issued, because I've seen it on sale, but it hasn't (unlike 'Little Britain' etc). appeared in any chart, at least down to the top 50. When I go into MVC next, I will look at the cover to see how many episodes are on it. 160.84.253.241 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought there were six episodes, as I remember other BBC Three programmes similar to this one (Man Stroke Woman and Tittybangbang) also having six episodes, though there's the slight chance that I could be wrong. I very much doubt there are more episodes that got dumpstered. If you know when the sixth episode went to air, please add it though. jd || talk || 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh no worries, I added it myself. jd || talk || 20:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

The Characters section of this article, like the rest of the article, had no references. So it appears that it's all Original Research. SO I removed it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that that is a little uneccessary. Characters may be harder for editors of this article to find information on, because the show is not one of those BIG shows like Little Britain or The Catherine Tate Show, but this doesn't merit their removal, really. CyberWiki (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Miss Jocelyn. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080811220912/http://www.rednoseday.com/whats-on/walk-this-way/ to http://www.rednoseday.com/whats-on/walk-this-way/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)