Talk:London Spy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Episode titles[edit]

The article lists titles for each episode (Lullaby, ....) but no source is given. These are also on IMDB, but that allows anyone to supply such details and is thus not a RS. The episodes are only numbered on the BBC site, no titles appear on screen. So I have reverted the titles to numbers. (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The IMDB is correct. The scripts are online. Each episode has a title. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@ERIDU-DREAMING: Per WP:BURDEN, it is your burden to add a reliable source, preferably as an inline citation, when adding new material. Otherwise, it is likely to be challenged and removed. See Citing sources for details of how to do this. I have reverted the titles which are not used at the BBC show website or on iTunes. You can readd them with the appropriate references.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you not have anything better to do?

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@ERIDU-DREAMING: these links look like WP:USERGENERATED content and as such their reliability is questionable. And you would have to add them as a reference to the information you are trying to add, per WP:BURDEN. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Finally, you deign to give a source. However, that is only for Episode 1. Where did the others come from? And read WP:RS/IMDB. The fact remains however that none of these titles is shown on screen, or in any BBC episode listing. They may have been in the script, (though there is evidence only for the first, not any of the others) but were dropped before broadcast. (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop digging and see a psychiatrist. Shall I give you the authors mobile number? Of course he might be an impersonator. You could tweet him. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop ignoring the rules by putting stuff in with no source. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site (like the foreverdreaming forum, where anyone can upload anything). You imply that these titles are endorsed by the author. Actually, he refers to them only by number. See his Twitter, e.g. "Nov 24 Thanks for all the messages about episode three of #londonspy". If you have him on the record confirming your titles, just cite it. (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The only thing you are proving is that you are an idiot. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have your insight into the secret titles of the episodes. Of course your source is classified so you can't reveal it. (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@ERIDU-DREAMING: First and most important, remember to remain civil!
Second, obviously the BBC source above is a good reference for the title of the script of the first episode. These titles may just be script titles, but episode titles can deviate from the title of the script they are based on. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"episode titles can deviate from the title of the script they are based on"

Keep digging! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

First, stop the uncivil name calling and abuse. Whatever you have dug up is irrelevant. There are no episode titles shown on screen, and only numbers on the official BBC site. If there were titles on the scripts they were dropped when the show was produced. They are a curiosity, but no more. (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note I am watching this discussion and any further rudeness towards other editors, be they registered or not, might result in restrictions on editing privileges. Graham Beards (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ERIDU DREAMNG is now reverting the episode titles to his preferred, unsourced, titles using his IP edits as (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not make the changes, but I have reverted your reversion, because it is obvious (as has previously been pointed out) why the unknown editor added them; because they are the titles on the shooting scripts, and how they are identified in discussions about the drama. What do you think you are achieving by deleting them? I could offer an explanation but I would not want to be rude. (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There is only one "shooting script" available from a verifiable source. Though you have not bothered to cite it. None of the other titles have any source at all, only that they are floating around on fan sites and someone put them on IMDB. In any case, the titles are not used on the actual episodes, or any official descriptions. Only by fans. You don't refer to a film or book by the working title on the script, you use the title it was finally published/broadcast under. But you don't argue logic or policy, you only revert and insult anyone who dares to edit your article. (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The titles are not just "floating around", nor are made up by "fans" (as you so disingenuously put it) they are taken from the shooting scripts (and as such are used by pretty much every other source - including the IMDB) You do not improve the entry by deleting them. It just makes the entry less informative. Yes that is YOUR contribution. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the episode titles do not appear either in the broadcasts themselves or on the programme’s official BBC website, then it is difficult to see how they can reasonably be used. However, I appreciate that other editors may disagree - in which case I propose that the controversy surrounding this issue requires that if they are to be reinstated two agreed reliable sources are required. Since IMDb is a disputed source this should be excluded. JezGrove (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter. I have already given a source from the BBC

I am only trying to make the entry better. If people want to make it worse by taking the titles out it is up to them. It seems that the director decided not to use the titles in the broadcast. The notion that the titles are just made up by fans is pathetic; it is the titles the author gave to each of his final shooting scripts. If you watch the programme they each make sense. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a script of the first episode only. Where do you get the titles of the other episodes that you have put in time and time again, with no sources? The "forever-dreaming" site contains transcripts made by viewers from watching it, not from actual scripts. So just fans again. That you think they "make sense" is not a source, your feelings do not make a reliable source. Only fansites and IMDB use them, and that is not a WP:RS; very likely it's the same people who put them around the fan sites. The BBC did not use any titles when they broadcast, neither are they used in any of the newspaper reviews. Only amateur blogs. If they are mentioned in the article at all, they must be explained as being working titles. But there is no source to even sustain that, it is only an assumption. We don't label the George Lucas movie The Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Starkiller, though that was a title used on an early script. Even if you think it was a nicer title, it isn't what was used when it was released. (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a truly stupid argument and you know it. You think that it is by chance that the name on the BBC script corresponds with the title on the other scripts available online? Why do I have to explain the obvious to you? Do you honestly think that "fans" just made up the names for those episodes? No you don't. All your objection amounts to is that somebody decided not to include the names of the episodes in the broadcast version. Fine delete them. Just stop the bullshit about "fan" scripts. The writer gave each episode names. You want to delete them because the names were not broadcast by the BBC - fine. It makes the entry less informative, that is YOUR contribution as I keep saying. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Violate WP:CIVIL repeatedly. Violate WP:SOCK repeatedly with IP edits to back yourself up.
There is only one shooting script available, Episode One. The others are made by fans and have no other sources. Even if these titles were used on scripts, you can't reinstate them over the titles actually used on broadcast. WP is a record of what happened, not what might have happened or what we prefer had happened. (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't believe that so why do you keep repeating it. Who are you trying to convince? Are you at all interested in the article or are you only interested in your ego? You want to go off and complain to somebody because the titles have been changed, when they have not been changed, so it is a completely pointless argument. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely pointless. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm not going to convince you of anything. Fortunately, it's not up to you. I tried to reason with you but you reverted without discussion, except to insult me, leaving me no option but to involve others to moderate your behaviour. (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
How many times do I have to repeat the same thing? The episode names (given to them by the author) have not been retained. They are not in the Wikipedia article. Your argument is completely pointless. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You haven't shown that the titles you inserted for episodes 2-5 are those "given by the author". They are not in the article now, but you have repeatedly inserted them into the article after brief pauses, even using IP socks. So excuse me for not trusting that you will not do it again. (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no point in repeating myself yet again. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet, you do it. (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Not any more. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this a logic puzzle? A statement that disproves itself? But go ahead, have the last word. I know you have to. (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Episode summaries[edit]

The episode summaries are too verbose. Template:Episode list suggests :"A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode".

I wrote a concise 120 word summary for Ep 4, it was replaced by a 360 word essay. I pointed out the guideline but it was reverted repeatedly. Maybe someone else wants to look at it. I really think all the current "summaries" are bloated. But trying to trim them just turns into an edit war. (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, since it's now clear that the IP editor who is bloating the summaries is actually ERIDU-DREAMING, I know I've been wasting my time explaining my edits. He won't listen to anyone who disagrees with him, even less so when he now imagines he is anonymous. (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that anybody who wants a laugh ought to read the "concise" summary of the episode given by "". Yes you have been wasting your time "" You miss most of the key plot points. (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Yes I wrote pretty much the entire entry. Unlike you I pay attention to what the drama is about, and help people follow it. No sure what you are doing. I could guess but I would not want to be rude. (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead of just insulting me over and over, let's compare the texts and see who laughs at what. Here is the 120 word summary I wrote:
The phone directs Danny to a meeting with a man who says he is an escort, hired to seduce Alex. Danny recalls talking to Alex about being "the one" for each other. He tries "0000001" for the code cylinder and it opens, revealing a USB plug. He and Scottie meet Alex's professor who tells them it contains research on a method of determining if someone is lying from their speech patterns. The police tell Danny he will not be charged with Alex's murder, he responds that "This isn't over". Scottie calls him from a locked cab, telling him "There will be a note". Danny runs to the park they met in earlier and finds Scottie's body hanging from a tree.
and here is the 3 times longer, 339 words, "summary" you wrote, violating Template:Episode list which says "A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode".
A voice on the phone directs Danny to a hotel room, where (to eliminate listening devices) he is told to immerse himself in a bath, and change into a new set of clothes. He is picked up by a taxi, locked in, and taken to a restaurant where Alex had previously taken him. An escort, dressed in identical clothes to Danny's, tells him that he is paid to seduce targets and that pretending to be a waiter he had taken Alex back to his flat, and had sex with him. Danny asks Scottie why Alex did not tell him, and Scottie responds that Alex wanted him to maintain his illusion that he was perfect. When Danny tells him about Alex’s funeral, Scottie suggests that he have his own ceremony. Danny goes to a favourite place, burns what possessions he has of Alex, and scatters the ashes into the sea. He recalls Alex telling him he does not believe in soulmates, and hurt that he does not say you are the only one for me, Danny suggests he see other people. In tears Alex tells him this is not what he wants. This gives Danny the idea that the cylinder code may be "0000001", and it opens to reveal a USB plug. He goes to Scottie's house, and discovers him drunk and depressed. They meet Alex's professor, who works out that Alex has discovered a method for detecting lies. He says that because Danny does not comprehend Alex's brilliance he did not really know him. Scottie suggests that his research may have been prompted by his lies to Danny. Danny wishes he could tell Alex that he still loves him. Later he tells Scottie he loves him very much. The police tell Danny he will not be charged, but he replies that it is not over. The episode ends with Scottie calling him from a locked cab, telling him "There will be a note". Danny runs to a place they both knew, and discovers Scottie's body hanging from a tree.
A lot of description of scenes that were visually effective, but actually did not advance the plot, e.g. the bath fully dressed, and a generally prolix and clumsy prose style. The the article is clearly the worse by the insertion of this. And the other "summaries" are the same, but you won't let anyone cut a word you wrote. (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They are all relevant to the plotline. Yes EVEN the bit (which I knew you would pick) about him being told to dunk in a bath and change clothes. The relevance of that is that it is the security services that set up the rent boy for Alex, because who else but the security services would want to prevent him having any listening devices. The locked cab is relevant because that indicates that it is the security services who murder Scottie. The depressed episode sets up the justification for the hanging. Even the fact that they return to the same restaurant is relevant. Two versions of Alex. All the other key plot points relate to the theme of love and lying which is the leitmotif of that episode. Danny loves Alex but Alex lied to him. Alex wants (because he loves Danny) to maintain an illusion. Because Alex lied to him he became obsessed with the possibility of detecting lying. Danny loves Scottie but he is responsible for his death. If Danny had accepted the lies he would still be alive. The rent boy does not love his clients, it is a lie. It is for money. The professor mocks Danny for thinking he knows Alex, just because he loves him. The "gushing bloated text" is in your own head - what I wrote is a precise and succinct plotting of the narratives lines. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a "SHORT SUMMARY". It isn't a transcript. It's not an analysis or essay. You don't list every part of every scene. You don't explain the thematic reasons for events. You just hit the necessary plot points in the shortest possible space. Template:Episode list says :"A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode". Your version is almost twice as long as the maximum. Look at the "previously on" at the beginning of subsequent episodes. It does it in 60 seconds and doesn't show all the embellishment you insist on. (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There are only FIVE episodes. Each is densely plotted. It is not (an American) series of 13 episodes, with season after season until the ratings fall. Did I mention that there are only FIVE episodes? ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, now I see in Template:Episode list it does say "You can write as much as you like if it's only FIVE episodes".
English hour-long dramas are obviously so much more densely plotted than those simplistic American hour-long dramas, like Game of Thrones (season 1), which only uses 120 words for their episode summaries. So we should ignore the rules. (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Did I mention there are only FIVE episodes? I think I did. How many repetitions does it take? As with the other thread I end here. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Why are you repeating this irrelevancy? It made no sense the first time. Or are you appealing to the Chewbacca defense? (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Episode summaries are not meant to be a blow by blow account of each episode. In episode lists they are merely supposed to provide an overview of the episode's main events, avoiding minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail, as explained in WP:TVPLOT. That's why we place a 100-200 word limit on the summaries. In a 1-hour TV series that is more than sufficient to convey the information that is needed. There have been many exhaustive discussions about the length of episode summaries and the 100-200 word limit has always stood. In an individual episode article, the summaries are longer at 200-500 words. Even feature films only get 400-700 words and they are always longer and more involved than any TV episode. The number of episodes in a series is completely irrelevant to the plot length. --AussieLegend () 11:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception[edit]

Some of the later reviews in the 'Critical reception' section cite comments posted online by individual viewers. Do these have a place here or should we be sticking with the responses from professional TV reviewers alone? JezGrove (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


Will there be a Series 2 - given the open ending?

There are various reasons why the lying-detector program created would not work/would only give limited useful information most of which will readily come to mind. (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)