Talk:Ghostwatch

BBC Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television Unassessed

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

"A phone number was shown on the screen so that viewers could "call in" and discuss ghostly phenomena (the number was actually connected to a local society for psychic research, who explained that the show was fictional)."

Wasn't the number 081 811 8181? If so, the 'local society for psychic research' thing can't be right, as 081 811 8181 was Going Live!'s number (and later became Live & Kicking's too). Thought I'd ask about it here, having not seen the show... Billy H 23:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of shows around that time used the same number at different times during the wek. It could always have been set up to redirect to wherever was necessary. Timrollpickering 10:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a source online which stated that the calls were answered by the Society for Psychic Research, whoever they are. I'll see if I can scare up -- er, sorry -- that reference. - Scooter 8 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)

The number definitely was 081 811 8181, which was the BBC's generic number at the time. Anyone who managed to get through on the line, was immediately told via a recorded message that the program was fictional, and then given the opportunity to record their own ghost story on to an answer phone.--Edward headwood 13:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD

Does somebody know whether the British released DVD plays in USA computer DVD drives? Jclerman 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rm alleged spam

Tp User:Finlay McWalter's tag; it's spam; sharing the same title does not make it a relevant or useful link:

I find it useful since I couldn't get the video. I consider it relevant for my research since as far as I can tell the clip you are removing has audio from the program - LISTEN to the link. Jclerman 12:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the program. If it were, it'd be an illegal copy. Either way we shouldn't link to it. Links to the same site have been spammed by 62.173.101.85 (talk · contribs) and 82.46.101.149 (talk · contribs). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I've beefed up the criticism section which seems to absolve the BBC of any 'guilt'. There was no reference to Miss Greene's promotion of the film earlier on Halloween morning to children on 'Going Live'. I also removed the word 'supposedly' from the reference to the children reportedly diagnosed with PTSD which was POV. The Fat Contrator 11:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you have any reliable sources to add to the article, do you? The JPS^{talk to me} 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween was a Friday that year. Going Live was on Saturdays. Sarah Greene appeared alive and well on the show the very next morning after the film was aired, so I'm not sure all this stuff about her promoting it as real holds any water at all. 91.109.254.140 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm I'll think you'll find 31/10/1992 was a Saturday. Unless my Windows calender is lying :) 12:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fat Contractor (talk • contribs)

Ghostwatch: Behind the Curtain has acquired the episodes of Going Live for the Saturday before, the 31st, and the Saturday after (http://ghostwatchbtc.blogspot.com/2009/11/well-actually-spool-it-back-to-point.html). No mention of Ghostwatch whatsoever. It seems like this really is just urban legend, unless she made the reference two weeks in advance.78.105.197.49 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Natkk[reply]

New templates

I have added templates to two sections in the article (you'll see which ones). These sections are too long compared to the rest of the article, giving undue emphasis to their content. The writing quality of these sections is somewhat less than the rest of the article, and the writer(s) used improper emphasis. Character names do not need to be italicised or bolded everywhere they appear, especially when you have failed to italicise the titles of other programmes and publications. Also, adding emphasis to words simply to create an emotional effect is editorialising. These sections require shortening, removal of fancruft and excessive detail, and style cleanup. I was appalled that so much space was given to non-essential detail about the subject. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

Can anyone provide information on the short story? A plot outline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.190.22 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]