Talk:The IT Crowd (UK)

Does this show need redirects from the lower case iterations of its title (ie - it crowd) to make it more searchable? How do lost and Lost point to the same article? Can that be done here?

(Note: There's currently a redirect from IT Crowd.)

Easy. It Crowd, The It Crowd, It crowd. And all articles always start with an upper case letter, so any search term automatically has a capital applied. -- Lampbane 20:17, 14 May 2006 (EDT)

Pronounciation

"The title was originally pronounced "it" (as in, "there it is"), but can also be pronounced "I.T." (as in, the abbreviation for "Information Technology").[1]"

This was recently deleted without discussion, pulling a relevant source out of the article. I recommend the text be reinserted. The replacement was justified in the edit note by insisting this cite supports one pronounciation, even though creator Graham Lineham's original response is "Either way works." He also concludes, "I'm perfectly happy with..." either. This is hardly a case for "there it is." Besides, if this citation indeed supports the current pronounciation, as the editor insists, why revert the citation as well? --User6985 10:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Also note:

1. Graham Lineham deliberately varied the way Channel 4 announcers introduced the show during its initial run.
2. Graham Lineham reiterates his ambivalence on the DVD commentary track, leading wikipedia to list both pronounciations as acceptable.1 Of course, the TVIV is not and should not be bound by wikipedia. But this might help to illustrate the depth of the evidence for this position. (We currently have no evidence whatsoever for the other position.)

In the end, I pronounce it like the pronoun, just like the other editor. And when I first heard Channel 4 announce the show the other way, I was a little confused, and checked out the TVIV for more info. I'd hate for someone else to hear that announcer, look here, and be forced to assume TVIV is an untrustworthy or incomplete resource. Especially when we could have so easily given that reader a fuller picture. --User6985 12:16, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I removed the line because ambivalence isn't proof, it's just the creator accepting that people aren't always going to pronounce it the way it's supposed to be. He said in that very source that it's supposed to be "IT" and so that's what we're going to say here. If you want, you can put the note in the trivia section so it notes the descrepancy without cluttering the intro (which was the other reason I took it out, the line made the intro too long). I don't worry about people assuming we're untrustworthy, I worry about being RIGHT. Incidentally, announcers probably shouldn't count as being definitive sources, I know from my own experience that they get pronunciations wrong sometimes. -- Lampbane 23:33, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Generally I agree that announcers shouldn't be dispositive, except in cases where the producer specifically instructed them on pronounciation, as here. You further argue that Graham Lineham's ambivalence shouldn't be dispositive either. But ambivalence is precisely my recommendation for the article, so I'm not sure how the creator could support me more. You conclude by insisting that we should just try to be "RIGHT." I couldn't agree more. Further, I find a reliable way to be "RIGHT" is through recourse to the evidence. Here, as you have introduced no new evidence, it still seems universally against your position. In light of this, I recommend we follow my original suggestion, with one caveat. I concede the point on wordiness, and so, recommend simple language inspired by the wikipedia entry, ie: (pronounced "it" or "I.T."). --User6985 20:18, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

No response though there's been plenty of time to formulate one, I'm following the lead of wikipedia. --User6985 04:01, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

We seem to be in a revert war over this. Even though DCEbot has stopped discussing the point. Not sure how tviv resolves such issues. --User6985 20:33, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

DCEBot has reverted the page once again without discussion here. Simply amazing. --User6985 19:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Summary of the arguments
1) Wikipedia
2) Alteration of the pronounciation by the announcers, at Graham Lineham's behest
3) The DVD Commentary Track
4) The online interview
Responses:
1) Wikipedia is not dispositive.
2) Announcers are not dispositive. The creator is not dispositive.
3) ?
4) The online interview doesn't express a preference.
Rebuttals:
1) Wikipedia is not dispositive, but it is SOME evidence, where we have none for the alternative.
2) The creator is more dispositive than you.
3) There has never been any response to this evidence because there is no response.
4) The "no preference" is exactly what the article should reflect, rather than a pronounciation drawn out of a hat.
5) Even if some of these pieces of evidence were responded to, there is no positive evidence for one pronounciation exclusively.
--User6985 19:40, 27 September 2007 (EDT)