Talk:Sugar Rush (British TV series)

Continuity in the use of "season or series"

Reading the article there seem to be some continuity problems with the use of "Season" and "Series" usage. As far as i know the new group of episodes were refered to by Channel 4 as the new series. Also as far as i know the term season is a word used by american broadcasters and not those in the UK. It wouldn't be as annoying if the article used one word and not both. Also should the article not be split so that there is a seperate article for the episode list? TheEnlightened 23:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

--81.79.120.32 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)We use both season and series in England--81.79.120.32 23:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction: In the UK, we use season for American TV shows, and series for British ones. You're right, the whole article should say series... godgoddingham333 00:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Usage varies in the UK. Hitch-hiker's Guide fans used to talk about two (radio) series, but now talk about five 'phases'. Doctor Who fans have always talked about seasons. It probably depends on whether they come round every year. 'Series', of course, is ambiguous, in that (as in the title of the article) it can refer to the whole show – throughout its lifetime. Grant 12:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mawkish...

Can someone remove the mawkish shite on this article e.g "Gay or not, Kim's voyage of discovery is one all of us have gone though, even if our families were not quite as messed up as hers"? I would but i dont know enough about the show Dermo69

Hello. I am going to look through the article now. I am not in a position to fix everything, but I shall certainly commence on the work that needs to be done on the article. (Galaxycat (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Episode guide

why has this been removed?? godgoddingham ³³³ 23:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I did say in the edit summary, it was copied from other websites. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 23:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, the channel 4 website... godgoddingham ³³³ 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And that'd be why I removed it. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done one episode, and considering I haven't even seen it, I think I did a decent job of it. Anybody else wanna pad it out? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If I get chance tomorrow I'll try and do some work on an ep guide Jastein 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The episodes should be move to a seperate article.. what happens if they make a third series, a fourth? This page would get unnecessarily long. Perhaps have a seperate article for each series as the episode guides do seem very in-depth, it would be a shame not to waste them. Mikay 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with that would be naming them - the episodes don't have names as far as I can tell. _{J Di}^talk 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: read more

Yeah, that doesn't sound too bad an idea. What would the articles be named if this article were split? _{J Di}^talk 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Formal tone

Why is the {{tone}} tag on the article? What sections are so bad that they need to be rewritten? _{J Di}^talk 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's about the text using "you" and "we" in the character descriptions, which was more prevalent when the tag was added. -- 82.46.154.93 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I am attempting to rewrite some parts of the article [ie the character descriptions] with a view to the section being in line with the standards of a Wikipedia article. I have only just commenced with Kim's character and still want to make improvements. If you are following this page, please look over what I have written in order to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of her character as it has been awhile since I have viewed an episode. Thank you. (16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxycat (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't a TV guide

I added some info as to why Channel 4 air this series late in the evening. I added (in not so many words) that the series contains scenes involving adults portraying minors engaging in sexual-intercourse. I merely added that for these reasons Channel 4 aired it later in the evening (after the water-shed) as opposed to its schedule being worked around Big Brother. I'll add it back, if its removed i'll add a controversy section with sources, independent sources if you will, but even the producers of the show acknowledge that the series is controversial and they're looking forward to "middle england" getting into a fuss over the standards of television programming declining, blah blah. I kinda think these Media-whores will offer the same insane and disgusting argument when they finally skip the "adult portraying minor part" and just use children! Dean1970 Oct 14th, 2006.

Couldn't you just skip to making the controversy section now? The article sure does need some negative stuff in it. jd || talk || 20:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll do some research at Ofcom. I've read a couple of newspaper blogs, I know they are not credible sources but the feeling from a few posts i've read is that C4 are advertising Sugar Rush during childrens programming around 4.30pm, the underlying feeling especially from a parent perspective is that an "Adult TV show is being marketed to kids"...(tsk, pesky parents!)I'll have to proper research. I know some politicians have equated such programming involving actors portraying children engaged in sexual intercourse as a "fix for pedophiles<sp>" so there are many different angles and perspectives that the controversy section would cover because there are of course, in a free society, differing opinions. Dean1970 Oct 14th, 2006

Episodes of Sugar Rush & story

I think it's pretty obvious that due to the size of this article and the fullness of its episode summaries it should be given its own article with correct template with screenshots and a re-wording if necessary. List of Sugar Rush episodes, yes?

Also, more work could be done now on this article to actually describe the show itself, rather than exploring the story through character bios. For example, in the opening paragraphs it notes its sometimes controversial material but yet doesn't state anything about homosexuality until the description of Kim's character.

Lastly, I think that the bios (which serve as a (hopefully temporary!) story) do not fit the Manual of Style for writing about fiction. I agree that it is written with regard to its themes on modern day England but it does seem to be written "in-universe" slightly too much than I would have thought acceptable. 80.47.67.194 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The episode "summaries" are most of the article, so splitting them wouldn't do much, as the article they are all moved to would still be quite long. If the episodes had names, it would make moving them to separate pages much easier, but as they don't, I don't know where to put them. If they do have episode names, and they just aren't printed in the television guides I buy or on the DVD boxsets, that'd make splitting this article much easier. Article names need to be suggested, and it would have been done ages ago if more people took an interest in this article's talk page. The character information could be easily sorted out, but I think moving the episode information should be done first. If splitting them isn't an option, I would have no objections if they were cut down to essential information only, if that would make the article short enough. jd || talk || 21:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's really far too much detail on the actual episodes that it swamps what should be a general overview of the series. If there has to be an in-depth analysis of the series plotline, it should be a separate page. I'm also surprised that there's no real comparison between what's in the original novel and how it was changed in the adaptation. Nick Cooper 11:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Series three

the article states that a channel 4 spokesperson said that there would be no series three, but the link just goes to some bbc article from years ago that only mentions sugar rush in passing. can someone verify that statement? that there wont be any season three? Because im sure many people would like to know for sure.

You appear to be confusing references with links. -- DickTurnip 00:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, however the cited source "TVeasy magazine" does not seem to exist, I have consulted several databases of magazines, and have been unable to locate any reference to "TVeasy magazine" in them, or on the net at large. Considering that this directly contradicts what is published verifiable information from BBC's own website for SR, i'm removing this information from the article. AdamJacobMuller 00:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like your databases let you down. TVeasy is a national (UK) TV listings magazine published by IPC Media. It's sold just about everywhere in the UK. Its ISSN is 1747-1133. Contact tveasy.askus@ipcmedia.com / phone (general enquiries) +44 (0)20 7261 7776. (Also, what has the BBC got to do with anything?) -- DickTurnip 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ipcmedia.com/magazines/tveasy/ -- DickTurnip 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, i was initially incorrect in stating that I wasn't able to find a reference to that article. What you have said regarding my lying about having someone who checked this particular issue of TVEasy is a violation of WP:NPA, please stop making personal attacks on me. I am still going to maintain that, yes, I have done what I can to verify that this is indeed false. Also, the official sugar rush website supports me. Even if this was published in some 3rd party tabloid, it can not be the final word on this when we clearly have a better source ( the official website ) that contradicts what you are saying. AdamJacobMuller 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

also, by databases, i was talking about stuff like Lexus-Nexus and other similar print-publication databases. Also, my library research staff informs me that it's not possible to obtain a copy of this. AdamJacobMuller 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I still have the issue that this appeared in. It was in the section at the back where people can write in and ask the editors stuff. I'm not sure if it's correct though. _JD^talk 21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

can you scan it in? and stick a copy somewhere. a large portion of my resistance to this has been my utter inability to actually get a copy of this, having an actual copy doens't answer the issues of validity of it (contradicting information on the actual sr website) but it would got a long way towards saying "we actually need to put this in the article, alibet in a way that indicates that it is still suspect" AdamJacobMuller 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't upload a scan if it to Wikipedia because the image would have to be used under fair use. All I can do is tell you that it is in the magazine. _JD^talk 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Scan the picture and email me and I'll upload it to my personal webspace and then it can be linked to.--NeilEvans 01:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys i emailed channel 4 and they told me that there wont be a series 3 i can email whoever wants to see it but its a no go :( chip1989

Re: no series 3

What did they say?! The rumour has been going around, despite the official site saying there will be another series

They said they have no plans to air a third series and their site is still saying that series 2 will be aired :( (Chip1989 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

My friend's sister was on the same Drama course as Olivia at Uni and still keeps in touch, and apparently Olivia has recently agreed to make a third series, but it will be the last. Apparently she was the reason it has taken so long for it to be confirmed as she has turned down several offers off Channel 4!

At a recent (10 jan) french interview, they clearly explain that there is no plan for a third season :-( http://www.toutelatele.com/article.php3?id_article=6333

OMG!!!! On the Sugar rush website it says that there will be a new series!!! (Chip1989

I've had an email from Shine - the exact content is "Dear Sarah, There are currently no plans to make a 3rd series of Sugar Rush. This decision was made by Channel 4, not Shine.". This arrived today (27 Feb). lofichic

Characters

Hello. I have commenced re-writing information on the characters. It has been quite some time since I have seen the episodes. Does anyone know what Nathan does for a profession? I do not recall it ever being mentioned in the series. Furthermore, I am assuming that Stella did not hold a job for the entirety of the series. Lastly, I would appreciate constructive feedback on any changes I make. Thank you (Galaxycat (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC))

Manual of Style/Television

The "tone" tag mentions "tone or style". To help deal with the style issue, I've rearranged the existing text per WP:MOSTV. I haven't intentionally added or removed any content but I see the diff says the article is shorter now so I must have missed something. The main change is to separate plot, characters and cast into different sections. The plot section looks too long - MOSTV suggests it be kept brief so there may be scope to edit that down sometime. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Sugar Rush (TV series) → Sugar Rush (UK TV series) – This is not the only series under this title with an article; see Sugar Rush (U.S. TV series). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and WP:NCTVUK. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.