Talk:Timewasters

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that racially themed time-travel comedy Timewasters was developed under the working title Black to the Future? Source: Royal Television Society: "Timewasters blends jokes, jazz and time travel to tackle big themes such as racism" ... “I came up with a title, Black to the Future.” ... "the theme of blackness is so embedded in the show".

• Reviewed: Operation Crossfire Hurricane
• Comment: Requesting 9 October 2021, the 4th anniversary of its premiere.

Moved to mainspace by Reidgreg (talk) and Zanimum (talk). Nominated by Reidgreg (talk) at 04:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

• This article is new enough, long enough, reasonably well written and sourced. Earwigs suggests no copyvio. The hook is interesting and is mentioned in the article. A QPQ has been provided. However, Reidgreg, I'm not seeing that it was developed with Black to the Future as a working title, just that at one point the creator had come up with that name-- the source gives no timeline for Universal's intervention. Is there something I'm missing? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Good point! I'm not sure exactly when the title changed. It was Black to the Future during development. It probably came to Universal's attention either when they were shopping the spec script around to studios or when they tried to register the name. There are a few different sources (not all cited) that mention it being called Black to the Future, I'll try to look through them and add a more definitive statement to the article. Will ping you here when done. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Eddie891: I found three existing references in the article which give better support for the statement. None of them specifically call it a "working title" but I think it fits the definition. I put them all at the end of the sentence (where one of them was already present). Since it's a surprising DYK fact, I hope that's okay and it doesn't look like overcitation. For convenience of review, here are the supporting statements: (2) "CarsonRenaissance" [inews interview with Taylor:] "It was originally called 'Black to the Future', I thought, 'that's a show I can sell'" (Universal Studios didn't: they threatened to sue, so he was forced changed it). (9) "BCGInterview" [British Comedy Guide] The show started life at the script stage with the title Black To The Future, however a certain movie studio didn't approve of that title, so it was changed to Blackwards, before everyone settled on the title Timewasters. (10) "KhaleeliSubverted" [The Guardian:] In the ITV2 series a south London jazz quartet find themselves stranded in the 1920s after getting into a lift in a rundown block of flats – a set-up that writer Daniel Lawrence Taylor says originally inspired the cheeky title Black to the Future, before Universal ruled it out. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that's good enough for me! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P6

20-minute assessment

@Reidgreg: Hi! Here's a 20-minute assessment of this article, as requested:

• No copyvio issues. The assessment picks up some proper nouns and attributed quotes, but this is not a problem. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• The free-use image justification seems appropriate. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Youtube and Soundcloud should be used with care, since they can't really be archived. If you can find the information from these sources elsewhere, I would recommend it (but it's probably fine if it's not available elsewhere). Spookyaki (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Did not find this elsewhere.

• Because it is self-published, Geek Girl Authority is considered an unreliable search per the New pages patrol source guide. It's fine for the attributed claim from McCune, but I don't think it's a sufficient source for the song. Spookyaki (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Was unaware of this; I use WP:RSP to check for unreliable sources. Whether or not the source is reliable, the author (McCune) seems to be the real deal, has written for a number of publications and is an approved critic at Rotten Tomatoes . Does that change your view?

If not, I found a mention at the CBC "What's new on CBC Gem in May 2020". Quote: "playing brilliant jazz versions of the 21st century's greatest songs (like Amy Winehouse's Back to Black and Outkast's Hey Ya)." I would consider it a reliable source, but it is connected since it's broadcasting/promoting the series.

• Oxford commas should probably be omitted, per MOS:TIES and to keep the use of British English consistent throughout the article. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• The recurring cast and guests need to be cited. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

These were taken from the episode credits. Should I cite each individual episode with a timestamp? I was afraid it would bloat the references section.

• In general, I think the plot summaries are a bit hard to follow and could use some copyediting. Check out the essays How to write a plot summary and Writing better articles for tips. You can also request a copyediting pass at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Spookyaki (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Taylor was learning to play the trumpet, and this interest led him to write about a black jazz band in the 1920s. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Taylor then worked with Barunka O'Shaughnessy, and through a series of drafts, they improved the humour and pacing of his stories for the first series. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• The programme was shot in Liverpool, taking advantage of the Georgian architecture in the city and period buildings, including the Liverpool Athenaeum and Martins Bank Building. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Generally, if you can, I would avoid one-sentence paragraphs, which can disrupt flow. See MOS:PARA. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• The cast took lessons to act like they could play their instruments, but do not play any music in the series. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Taylor stated in an interview that "racism is ridiculous" and enjoyed mining it for humour. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Cheryl Eddy of Gizmodo described the series as a sharply satirical comedy that expertly draws humour from racism. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• She particularly praised Taylor's performance, and encouraged parents to discuss with their children the racial issues raised and how it can be "empowering to make jokes about serious topics". Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...using "hypervisible" outsider underdog characters who eschew expectations as their endeavours backfire, while broadly mocking the white characters who believe themselves special. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Agathe Devionot of Just Focus felt that the series was a perfect fusion of comedy with the modernity of the main characters encountering cultural shock in the time-travel scenario.—Unclear what this means, consider rephrasing. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• ...Ed Gove noted the rarity of an all-black central cast on British TV, and summed up the programme's attitude toward race with a joke from the pilot... Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• Matthew Bell compared Timewasters to Derry Girls and Home, for finding humour in dark subject matter. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• However, a lack of press releases or reportage after August 2021 suggests that it did not go into production.—This claim needs to be cited. Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

No source. I would not want to use search engine results. I felt that if I hadn't included that sentence, it would've looked incomplete and someone would have 'helpfully' tagged it with update inline. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work! This is an interesting and well-researched article. Overall, I think it could use a copyediting pass, either from yourself or the Guild of Copy Editors (one general suggestion I have for the prose: limit passive voice). If you can punch up the prose a bit and address some of the sourcing issues, I don't think this article will have any issues getting GA. Good luck, and I hope this helps! Spookyaki (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Spookyaki: Thanks for the assessment. It's already been picked up at Talk:Timewasters/GA1 so will continue from there. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Timewasters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 18:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will review this one for the drive. Before I start though, I do recommend addressing the "20-minute assessment" on the talk page courtesy of Spookyaki. The only comment I disagree with is regarding the Oxford commas, otherwise known as serial commas. As per MOS:OXFORD, you don't have to remove Oxford commas; they just have to be consistent. Lazman321 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity! I will try to address the assessment in the next few days. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I've responded to the assessment. I did not make changes for a couple things because I wasn't sure the preferred route to take:

• Whether primary sources are sufficient for citing the recurring and guest cast or if I should perhaps trim down that list to the most notable. I believe my intent at the time of writing was to define the cast later mentioned in the episode summaries.
• Whether removing the last (unsourced) sentence in the US remake section would make the article look incomplete.

I look forward to your review. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, at the present moment, I'm burnt out due to IRL. Do expect a review over the weekend. Lazman321 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I'm back and ready to review. Lazman321 (talk)

1 - Well written

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

While I've never seen a references section use the heading "Footnotes" before, it does appear to comply with the relevant reference layout guidelines. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

Little Black Book and Geek Girl Authority appear to be unreliable and should be removed or replaced with better sources. Additionally, I don't recognize Just Focus and cannot find any discussion on it; I'm gonna take it up with WP:RSN. Finally, while The Guardian and probably the RTS sources would be reliable for the production section, they aren't reviews and thus shouldn't be used in the reception section. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

2c - No original research

This is where I usually do spot-checks of the sources, but given what I am requesting in the review, I'll hold off for now. In the meantime, I do oppose keeping that sentence about the US remake potentially being cancelled due to the lack of recent press releases. Unless there is a reliable source confirming that, it is, by definition, original research. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

Are you sure this article covers the "main aspects" of the topic. First of all, I don't even see a premise section. Second, the development, production, and themes sections are quite bare-bones. I suggest combining and expanding them. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

3b - Focused

There are two parts of this article that give me pause. First, the music section mentions an official soundtrack posted on Soundcloud and the tracks used in Timewasters. Without secondary coverage, this feels like unnecessary detail. Second, the reception section goes into detail on what the different writers from the RTS thought of Timewasters. Given that the RTS isn't even the most well-known source used in this section, this feels like indiscriminate details that very few would be interested, especially since the sources used aren't even reviews. In fact, even if the RTS was the most well-known, I don't think it's necessary to mention what the chairman mentioned off-hand in a livestream. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

At the moment, no issues with the article's neutrality. Opinions are attributed to critics, with everything else being stated plainly. While the reception section does seem very positive, all of the reviews I could find of Timewasters were positive, with only minor complaints. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

5 - Stable

No ongoing edit war or content dispute. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The one image in the article, the title card, has a valid fair-use rationale. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

The one image in the article is relevant due to it being the title card of the series. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

@Reidgreg: There's quite a bit to be addressed in this article. As such, I will be putting this review on hold for seven days to give you a chance to address them. Lazman321 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: You have a day left and there has been no activity as far as I can see. If no attempt is made at addressing these concerns, I will have no choice but to fail this nomination. Lazman321 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Thanks for the review! It's become apparent that I don't have time to rewrite the article right now, but I would like to briefly go over some of your comments so I'll be prepared when I can return to this in the future.

• Good call on the Royal Television Society; I feel most of that can be worked into Themes to bulk up that section.
• You noted that Production and Development were short (good idea to combine them!) but didn't mention Release, by far the shortest L2 section. I'm not sure it's part of GACRIT, but some reviewers do like equal-length L2 sections, is there anything you feel could combine with that?
• For a Premise section, I've been wary of restating the plot more than once. (Sufficing to about 45 words of sourced premise in the lead). The sixth paragraph of MOS:TVPLOT states that An article should not have both an episode table with summaries and a prose plot summary. In other TV GAs, I've moved the episode list to a separate List of X episodes article, but in this case the episode list is relatively short (12 episodes) and I wasn't sure that it made sense to split it, and also there's the problem of the split list article being all summary with no analysis. Any advice on how to resolve this?

Would appreciate any clarification or thoughts. Sorry again about abandoning this, barely have time to jot this down right now. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That's fine. Your IRL stuff is more important than Wikipedia. About your comments above, I usually see the release/broadcast section merged with the reception section, and MOS:TVPLOT as guidelines regarding premise sections, which generally are for when plot summaries are relegated to the episode tables. In any case, I'd be willing to work with you on this article again in the future, if you'd like. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.