Talk:Veep

United States: District of Columbia Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).

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.

Television: Episode coverage Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

wtf d00d[edit]

Why is the first paragraph of this article written in the past tense with NO LINKAGE re: whether the pilot has in fact not been picked up, something which would then necessitate the discussion of the pilot in the past tense. Where are all the AD fans on this one? For shame. Wangoed 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed this morning by User:69.142.96.224. If it's been cancelled, then there really ought to be a citation. I've reverted it for the time being. Bob talk 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's actually true that this show hasn't been picked up. ABC has released its fall schedule and this show doesn't appear on it. With a quick search I turned up [1], but there's probably a better link out there somewhere. I'm not sure what to do with the article so I'll let someone else do it, but is this article even worth having now? I guess it's still possible that it could be picked up at a later time, but it seems unlikely. (Or maybe shows that aren't picked up are still notable? I honestly don't know.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickencha (talk • contribs)

I stumbled across a good story saying it wasn't picked up and not likely to be (The SF Chronicle story now in the references). This article should be merged back into the article on the original series. 68.36.163.22 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mockumentary?[edit]

As the characters of The Thick of It never actually address the camera and there doesn't seem to be any hint that it is a mockumentary other than the style of camera movements i'm not sure if it should be considered as such Sean 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's commonly referred to as such in media because of the "wobbly camera" style of filming but AFAIK it's never been referred to by the producers as a mockumentary. I'll have a listen to the DVD commentaries at some point. Brad 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veep (TV series) → VEEP – VEEP is a short term for Vice-President. I think we should move this to VEEP. 69.115.133.84 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:MOSCAPS, and "veep" (not "VEEP") is a short term for vice-president, as already indicated at veep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even if VEEP (which I've never seen in use) were the overwhelmingly more common form, the style used by the TV series governs the title of an article about the TV series. —Tamfang (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Political party[edit]

The last para of the article:

"In an April 17, 2012 interview on The Daily Show, Louis-Dreyfus described Veep's intent, in keeping with the BBC show, of not having the President appear on-screen, and not to reveal the political party of the characters.[19][20]"

So I watched the video and she doesn't say that at all, which is good, since it's rubbish. In "The Thick of It" we know from the beginning that Tucker works for the Labour Party, and we see the PM a few times at least. So I have adjusted the article accordingly. Barsoomian (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does she claim that the party of her character is ever in doubt? Because that's rubbish too by the first season, well before any blue/red issues. (Republicans were traditionally colored in blue.) The biases, jokes, and political allies and enemies of her side make it patently obvious she's Democratic. (Of course, we need an authoritative critic to source that but it still bears correcting.) —

Llywelyn II

17:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They also mention frequently in the show she's a Democrat. For example, in one episode they call Danny Chung liberal, and seeing as how Selina is in the same party, that would make her a liberal too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.214.100 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critics[edit]

"The first season of the series has been well-received by the critics, particularly Louis-Dreyfus, who has received widespread critical acclaim for her performance."

Louis-Dreyfus is a critic? Can someone please correct it. I never feel I have the right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torydude (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PODIS ?[edit]

As far as I'm aware, the abbreviation for the US president is POTUS, but in the show they always say PODIS (PO as in Poland, DIS as in Distant). Now I know that Americans typically pronounce a T as a D (Duty == Doody), but that doesn't explain the U being pronounced as an I. What's the deal ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.204.254 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way it's often pronounced in real life, too - to my ears it's a mixture of a schwa sound and a short i. It's just how some people say it.--DearPrudence (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinéma vérité wikilink[edit]

The section on the development of Veep includes a wikilink to Cinéma vérité, but for some reason it links to the subsection Cinéma-vérité#Cinéma-vérité style films and television shows.

This makes some sense - Veep does fit into that category - but is at odds with the rest of Wikipedia. On the basis that it's better to ask forgiveness than seek permission, I'll change it now (it's not too hard to revert a change like this) but I thought that either way it's probably best to explain my position.

82.36.86.14 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the tax credits taken by the show relevant?[edit]

This information adds nothing to the article and should be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.48.244 (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am removing it. 79616gr (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season links are broken[edit]

The links to each of the seasons goes to the current page, whereas they should go to https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=List_of_Veep_episodes#...

Can someone fix? (Sorry, I don't know how to).

Hugh.glaser (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. It's now fixed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2017[edit]

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: all moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veep (TV series) → Veep
Veep → Veep (disambiguation)

– TV series is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with respect to usage and long-term significance (historic critical acclaim, Best Comedy Emmy winner, etc). 300,000+ views for TV series in last 3 months vs. 304 pageviews for "Saint Veep." Disambiguation page should suffice. Exemplary case of PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only other topic I could see coming close is the fact that this is an infrequent shortening for "Vice President", but per WP:NOTADICTIONARY I think we can just list that on the DAB page. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, series is now clearly the primary topic. Bob talk 18:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Rswallis10 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

LGBT-related television shows?[edit]

In what way is this an LGBT television show? I don't even remember any LGBT characters. The only LGBT(Q) story that I can remember was a minor sub-plot.Probablynoteworthy (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selina's daughter Catherine reveals she's gay in season five and is in a relationship with another woman. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season 7[edit]

I just watched season 7 so the media table needs to be updated to show that this is now available.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on questionable claim of show’s political affiliation[edit]

Added inline flag on a part of sentence that claims the show has political affiliation. It is within the synopsis section. This section contains zero citations, though I understand a tv show synopsis may not need a ton (or should this section have citations?). However, a claim is made within this section regarding the “hinting” of political affiliation with one party. I respectfully ask for some sort of verifiable evidence of this claim, especially considering that it is widely reported that the show avoids party affiliation. Input here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Informationageuser (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this has been escalated to an RfC? You requested a source, reasonably enough, and started a discussion here, which is a great idea though not a necessary one. If no source is provided within a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed. If the need for a source is disputed, the easiest option is usually to provide one, but statements such as "It is hinted that..." sound like original research to me. Is there a dispute about this? If not, no need for an RfC and I'd recommend withdrawing that. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears an editor has since removed the latter part of the sentence which contained the questionable claim. Thanks all. Informationageuser (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing/ending this RfC per above recommendation. Summary: Unsupported claim in question was removed during an edit by another editor without dispute. Thanks to all for input and contributions. Informationageuser (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President resigning doesn’t make Selina running a moot point[edit]

When President Hughes resigns, he had already decided not to run for reelection. Him resigning makes her president, but does not change the fact that Selina is still running. Topic discusser (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]