Talk:The Bill: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:00, 11 August 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bill article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2

The Bill was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: October 24, 2005. (Reviewed version).

Template:WikiProject The Bill

London Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:British TV shows project

Beth Green leaving date

This is a pretty lame edit war, but... the linked source for Lytton's character leaving has her quoted as saying "I'm only in The Bill until October, then it's finished", and I'm not seeing any explanation as to why this means Lytton is actually leaving in January 2009. Is there a known three-month delay between filming and screening, or something? --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of days now, so I've changed the article to match the source. If there's an argument for January 2009, feel free to explain and revert. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think theres a six month delay beetween filming and air dates. but whens diane returning? but anyway its wont be more than six months from filming untill the air date, i would't have thought anyway lol—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minty fresh ety 09 (talk • contribs)

Upcoming character changes

I was just wondering if there was any need for this section? Personally it doesn't add much to the article, and surely it's potentially a spoiler if it has upcoming changes (eg. Beth Green leaving). Could these changes not be written into the bio's of individual characters instead? londonsista | ^Prod 20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would agree with that, and there's always plenty of unsourced additions to this section. Schumi555 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the changes get put back or were they never removed? I agree that they're a magnet for unreferenced changes, and not particularly encylopedic. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep the section it is good to knows if there's any new arrivals or depatures, if it was on idvidual profiles then it would be looking at each current cast members profile i ain't got the time lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minty fresh ety 09 (talk • contribs)

Merge Proposal

I've made the proposal that most of the "notable storylines" be merged into this article. This includes Sun Hill Explosion 1988, The Don Beech Scandal, Beech on the Run, The Sun Hill Fire (2002), The Sun Hill Fire (2005), Sun Hill Siege (2007), Sunhill Bombings (2008), and Proof Of Life (2008). These storylines aren't actually that notable in the grand scheme of things, moreover the articles are mostly unreferenced and they don't really cover the importance of the subject in the real world. Merged they would probably make an additional paragraph to either The Bill or History of The Bill. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i say just have a page named "The bill history" or "The bill major storylines" etc. but adding them to the main bill page i recon it would make it a bit to long. also clearly advertise it on the main bill page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minty fresh ety 09 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that all the articles do is to give a review of the plot. To be an acceptable Wikipedia article the plot needs to be a fraction of the article, with discussion about the impact on the real world, how the public received the episodes, any changes that they brought to the direction of the show, etc. --Deadly∀ssassin 09:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No WAYY it is needed THEBILL1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.50.141 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain why? --Deadly∀ssassin 08:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you can not murge everying thing onto one page suddenly, those pages have remained on there for ages and not been deleated so there isnt any reason, they could how ever have some work done on them, the sollution here is deffedntly not murging them. 84.64.14.35 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - solution is not in merging. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the solution besides deletion? They remain in-universe, non-notable and unreferenced articles. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common vote is against it, you'll just have to act grown up and take the outlook that not everything comes out your way. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 08:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, ok. Ignoring the stupid personal remarks. Do you disagree that the articles are non-notable, in-universe and unreferenced? If you do, then please explain how. If you don't, then please answer the question as to what the solution is. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a "stupid personal remark" it is an outlook that should be taken in all fairness to you. Deletion is not the solution, these articles can be re-written to make them less in-universe, notable and well referenced. You are taking the easy way out by trying to delete them, rather than editing them to help, everyone knows its easier just to delete something you dont like. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 08:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the issues can be solved, hence why I ask what the solution is. These storylines may be notable in the universe of The Bill, but I don't believe they will ever be in the real world. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the major storylines shouldnt have their own articles, it should be on a single article with the title of The Bill major story lines or something like that. However they certainly shouldnt all just be merged into this article, it would take up too much space. The Bill is notable enough to justify another article for all major plots / story lines but i dont think a single article just for the 1998 explosion is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a new section should be added to History of the bill for Major story lines / plots where each of the major storylines can be mentioned with a brief explanation as to what happened. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could work as long as the REAL WORLD impact of the storylines is covered in as much depth as a rehashing of the plot. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger. I was just about to redirect Beech on the Run as it contained no out-of-universe information discussing the episode's notability in the real-world. If the rest of these articles are the same they should be merged before the inevitable deletion. Them From Space 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable guests

I'm sure David Tennant appeared in one episode about 10 years ago. Could this be added to the notable guests section? 86.5.15.51 (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did indeed. I hadn't realised that it hadn't been added, so I'll add it now. Thanks! Sonnenbarke (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is then end Nigh ?

Rumors have been going around that the bill i being cut to Just a 1 hour episode a week ? is this true ?--Mohammed patel (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes [1] ^Tom _Phil 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the new theme and the rest of the changes will probably cause the show's eventual demise too.

Axed in Scotland section

I think this whole section should be cut and merged into a couple of sentences in the Overseas broadcast section. At the very least, I think it should be significantly cut down and moved further down the article as it is more news than encyclopedia. Any suggestions before I have a go myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.39.118 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current section is too big, however i think its worthy of its own section (not quite sure if it should be right at the top). I strongly oppose it being moved to the overseas section and will revert such a change. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, this is a British show.. it aint "overseas". BritishWatcher (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm i hadnt read the whole thing and didnt know they are now showing the Bill on ITV3 so everyone can still watch it. Id suggest deleting the whole section and just putting in the introduction that its not available on STV since.. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 :Yes [http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/a144225/the-bill-cut-to-one-episode-a-week.html] [[User:TomPhil|<sup><font color="#8D38C9">Tom</font></sup>]][[User_talk:TomPhil|<sub><font color="#2554C7">Phil</font></sub>]] 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
+:Also, the new theme and the rest of the changes will probably cause the show's eventual demise too.
 == Axed in Scotland section ==