Talk:Dark Season

BBC 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

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: British Start‑class Low‑importance

	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 given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

DVD release[edit]

I wonder why this classic series has not been released on DVD or video? =) --Mr. Stabs 10:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask BBC Worldwide. However, I am optimistic that this and Century Falls could see release in their 'cult classics' strand sooner rather than later. Angmering 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's scheduled for release on 17 July 2006.--Darrelljon 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's been mentioned in the article for a while now. Angmering 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The release has been postponed to the 24th July.--TheIslander 15:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School Reunion[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the plot similarities between Dark Season & the Doctor Who episode 'School Reunion'? 84.69.0.192 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although personally I think the similarities are somewhat limited, and more aesthetic than detailed. Also, Davies didn't write School Reunion, so it's tricky to argue whether such similarities would have been intended. Angmering 10:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the similarities are very limited --TheIslander 12:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my view, the similarities are strong enough, and RTD involved enough, to mention the similarities. Indeed School Reunion (Doctor Who) already has a reference back to this page. Thus I've included a fairly well-referenced "Commonality with Doctor Who" secion. CzechOut 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite like what you've written. To make myself clearer, I certainly agree that there are many similarities between Dark Season and Doctor Who, it was just the specific comparison between School Reunion and Dark Season that I found a little 'off'. TheIslander 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I see your point, though. It's not really the plot elements but the sort of "vibe" that's similar. Interestingly, I think the strongest plot connection is actually one for which I can't find reference elsewhere, so I hesitate to include it. I actually think Miss Maitland is a prototype for Mickey Smith, down to the fact that she uses ordinary heavy equipment to effect a solution and "get involved" in events she'd previously viewed with suspicion. Davies may be telling the truth when he says he didn't consciously intend for Doctor Who (1963) to influence Dark Season, but it's pretty obvious that Dark Season is at the core of Doctor Who (2005). CzechOut 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Crew section[edit]

As at Talk:Century Falls, I feel obliged to ask the question whether the Cast and Crew section here isn't made redundant by the very nature of Wikipedia. You can click on the names of any of these people elsewhere in the article and get a more complete c.v. CzechOut 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - you're right, you can get info by clicking on any of the names, but each article should stand on its own, and without this section, this article won't. _TheIslander 12:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The editor who originally included this section has admitted that it's superfluous over at Talk:Century Falls. Why, specifically, do you think the section is necessary? To me, they're a legacy from when the article didn't have an info box which encapsulates all the information in the section more concisely. CzechOut 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused you might be, but there's no need to state as much ;). Just because the original editor now thinks it superflous doesn't mean all other editors do. The infobox gives a plain, blank list of (some) of those who were involved with the programme. The cast section, however, expands on this, and gives more detail. Now, I'm well aware that it possible to click on (some) of the names to get more info, but using that alone means that this article doesn't stand up on it's own. _TheIslander 09:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the "detail" isn't sourced, nor is it particularly notable. Let's take a look at a television series article which has achieved feature status: Cheers. Surely that can safely be a template for us, here. There's no discussion about the general filmography of the actors. The only discussion is about them in context of Cheers itself. Using that paradigm, the only piece of casting information that is relevant is the bit about Pearce and the turban. And even that is poorly sourced. If you can find some information about why the actors were cast in this particular production, then there's something for the section to do. Otherwise, it needs to go. CzechOut 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, points made, points accepted (though I would strongly disagree that it "needs to go", just that it can go). I think, however, that instead of being removed, it needs to be replaced. One huge point, that I managed to forget to make, is that though the infobox contains the cast, it doesn't actually state who played what. The article needs a cast section stating who played which character, similar to that at the beinning of Cheers, which you yourself cite as a great example. We need a cast list of some form or another, and not just that in the infobox. _TheIslander 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]