Talk:Man About the House

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Comedy

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

39 + 1 short[edit]

What is the short referred to in the infobox, it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Paul 1978 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I added it with reference.--UpDown 11:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Radio Times is not a primary, nor an independent source. It's a media publication with a for-profit motive and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.210.225 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not read what the source actually is? It the "Radio Times Guide to Comedy", not the weekly magazine. Regardless for this purpose it is perfectly fine and well used.--UpDown (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not most publications have a for-profit motive? Even, say, the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Should we disregard a reference in The Times, or in a book published by HarperCollins, because they are owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox?Tsuguya (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Radio Times can be used as a source. It will have reviews of the show, comments from the creators and cast, etc. This can all be used here if referenced. Format (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst that is true it would be of no use for this series as it wouldn't be listed in Radio Times only TV Times, the ITV listings magazine of the time.81.111.126.82 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characters[edit]

Do any of the characters from this show have their own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.136.48 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man About the House. 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://archive.is/20120904201103/http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/819011 to http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/819011

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) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]