Talk:The Bill

Template:British TV shows project

I have archived old conversations

I've archived all conversations that haven't been updated recently, as there were was a lot of old redundant clutter on the talk page. When starting a new topic please do it on here, at the bottom of the page, with a new sub-heading. Thanks ( Just The Q ) 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Craig Gilmore - "Gay Gilmore"?

There's a bit of an edit war going on about whether the line "is married to Hywel Simons, who played Sergeant Craig Gilmore until 2003." should become "is married to Hywel Simons, who played Sergeant Craig "Gay" Gilmore until 2003." I personally think the references to him being gay is completely unnecessary and should certainly not be mentioned there. The other characters' nicknames are not mentioned at all, especially not in the trivia section. If it were to come to a vote, I would vote against putting 'Craig "gay" Gilmore'. JoshHolloway 20:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally see no problem with it, as it was the nickname by which he was commonly refered to in the series. Jay Firestorm 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about there being a "problem with it" as if there's a problem because you're stating his sexuality, it's just not necessary/appropriate. For instance, Sgt. Dale Smith would not at that point be called 'Sgt. Dale "Smithy" Smith'. JoshHolloway 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be there - it was refered to an awful lot that he was gay but he was never actually called "Craig Gay Gilmore" - it was never a nickname. Therefore, it's not appropriate. ( Just The Q ) 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should not be there. Whereas everyone in the Bill calls Dale Smith, "Smithy", No-one called Craig Gilmore "Gay" as a nickname, and so it is unnecessary. If a reference to the characters sexuality is needed, it should not be in quotation marks between his name. 87.113.93.225 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was a nickname used several times by Des Taviner (and a couple of other characters), but as it is commonly seems as it should not be there, I'm happy to go along with it. Jay Firestorm 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IC 1 , IC 2 , IC 3

For years, I was unable to decipher what this code meant, till I sked an ex-police officer, who told me an "IC1" is a "Caucasian", "IC2" is "(South)Asian/Indian/Pakistani", while "IC3" means "black". I would add this to the article, but I am not sure where to place it - it seems a level above "trivia" ! Textbot 07:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think there's much reason to include it in the article, there's an article already. One Night In Hackney 07:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Something in trivia such as "The Bill regulary identifies suspects by their IC Code, just as the Metropolitan Police does"? Needs rewording, probably. JoshHolloway 12:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

203.63.143.122 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, I took a look there at IC codes. I see quite a few more there than I remember hearing on the Bill, where I recall only #1, 2, and 3... maybe the TV show simplifies ??..anyway, to re-phrase my original question: is there a place for such information in eg a glossary ??

WikiProject The Bill

I have created a The Bill WikiProject so we can get together and improve all articles about The Bill. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Bill to have a look! Thanks ( Just The Q ) 13:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Added Trivia

The trivia that has just been added - I think it's wrong slightly. First of all I thought it was "Right Carver..." and not "Okay Carver..." but I might be mistaken on that. Secondly, I think it was on his wedding day to June Ackland he said it the other time and not in the live episode. Anyone else remember whether these two things are right or not? Thanks ( Just The Q ) 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Okay Carver, let's do thisit" was the first line in Woodentop, not the first episode of The Bill proper (which opens with a sequence featuring Bob Cryer). FiggyBee 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I just checked my DVD (Christmas present ;)) and the line, in Woodentop at least, is "Okay Carver, let's do it"... FiggyBee 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that he said it in the live episode - I'm sure it was his wedding day. ( Just The Q ) ( talk ) 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you come to mention it, I think it may be the wedding episode too. I have the live episode on videotape (must copy it to DVD sometime!!), I'll try to dig it out to check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay Firestorm (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Recurring character diputes

To JayFirestorm (and anyone else who wants to join in the conversation):

Hi - think we should discuss this here rather than going backwards and forwards. Cyril Nri has actually left The Bill and although Adam's leaving story as Borough Commander was that he was taking a sabatical, unless Cyril Nri signs up again sometime in the future, we won't be seeing any more of Adam Okaro.

Secondly, I think this is more controversial than the Adam one, but Amy's mum has hardly been featured at all. The whole of the plot is centred on James and how he copes with the disappearance; his ups and downs in mood and depression. I would hardly count her as "recurring" as we've hardly seen any of her, and I doubt we will see much of her in the coming months either.

Let me know what you think - please reply within the next week with a reasonable discussion - I'm all up for discussing changes and coming to compromises and thinking/debating what should be featured in articles.

Many Thanks, ( Just The Q ) ( talk ) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Previous Characters Removal

Sorry, missed the link at the top with the previous characters, but by that point, do we really need to repeat the current characters on the seperate characters page as well as on the main page? David 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, keep it in a seperate list. There is no need to have it twice. JoshHolloway 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

Some character links redirect to people with the same names but unrelated to the programme (Smithy being an example, find his name and it links to someone with the same name). I tried to sort at least one but failed. Can someone take a look please? 86.11.100.88 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All links go to relevant pages.--NeilEvans 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New/Old

I cannot believe the only reference to there being a 'New' and 'Old' Bill is in some external link at the bottom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.136.35.197 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Jim Carver Joins The Met.

This may be 'Old Hat', but I believe that the whole of The Bill phenomina has it's genesis in a paper-back entitled 'Jim Carver Joins The Met'. My copy of this Book is in storage with a few hundred other books, so I don't have too much more information to hand.

210.215.12.114 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Steve King.

Constant Changing..

Is it really needed for the constant changing of "Upcoming Characters"?

I understand that as new characters are found out about they should be put up but it seems to be the same stuff coming and going...

For example.. One day there would be a piece about DS Hunter transfering to uniform... then it would go, then it would come back again as if it's a brand new piece of news.

Can someone explain why this happens and does anyone agree that it should stop? Amstoakes 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should stop. At first when the news of Phil Hunter was added there was no reliable source. So it was removed. Also someone keeps linking to character names already linked in the article, even though they only need to be linked to once.--NeilEvans 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Constant editing of layout and terms in Cast

Nearly everyday there is a change in the layout of the cast, from DCI to Detective Chief Inspector then back again, linking all the constables together, then separating them into Uniform and CID... can we not stick to just one format for the cast? What does everyone else think? BNC85 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need for the constant changes. Maybe it would be best if we refer it to the people over at "The Bill" wikiproject and see if people can come to an agreement.--NeilEvans 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, people who keep on mentioning the fact that Jack was acting Superintendent for about 3 weeks in 2005 should desist. Especially considering the fact that he went off with his son, and we didn't actually see any difference in Jack for the short time he was acting super. Thetoaster3 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How long characters have been in it

In the Characters section, should how long a characters been in the bill be placed next to the name of the character . eg. PC Dan Casper (Chris Jarvis) (2005-present). I find this easy to find imformation to find.

I don't think it's really necessary, if people want to know that info they can just navigate to the characters page.--NeilEvans 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt say its that important to do, i mean like neil said people can go to the character page if they are that interested in finding out how long they have been in it.

Edit warring over character lists...

I've noticed this going back and forth for the last few days, with nothing in the way of discussion. I'm not a regular contributor on this topic (I've reverted obvious vandalism here but that's about as far as it goes) but I do feel that this is counterproductive for the further development of the article. Why not stop the reverting for a while and try to talk through the issue here, on the talk page? I'm talking particularly to User:Calcon18 and User:Mark bickley here.

I'm not attacking either of you - it just seems from the history that you two have been reverting each other the most frequently and probably should take care not to violate WP:3RR. For the record, I don't even have an opinion on which version is the 'best'. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've also reverted edits. I personally feel that the dates are not needed as this info should be contained in the characters pages. Also as there is no obvious order to the characters, the names of characters should be in alphabetical order. Also feels that the recurring character section is ok and should be left alone.--NeilEvans 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the table. Adding something as major as that, which alters the structure of the article should have been discussed with other editors on the talk page or even taken to The Bill Wikiproject. Hopefully with some discussion we can come to an agreement which format to use.--NeilEvans 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Other shows such as Holby Blue, Casualty, Holby City use tables so maybe this article should have one as well. Calcon18 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From User:Mark bickley (84.71.192.107): To be honest, I do not see why I should attempt to discuss the issue of a change when Calcon18 who changed the formatting to the table in the first place didnt do this. I reverted to the origonal formatting without discussion because the formatting was changed without discussion, which I (and as I predicted, several other regular users, including User:NeilEvans) think is perfectly reasonable. The table is big, bulky, unattractive and unneccessary. Had Calcon18 had issues with the origonal list format I would have had a perfectly reasonable discussion with him/her regarding the matter, but as it was done without any form of communication including edit summaries, I'm afraid that I'm not happy to leave the table and will revert any more edits, as I'm sure will User:NeilEvans. Thank you, however, for your independent and balanced interception of the disagreement.