Talk:The Bletchley Circle

Morris Oxford

Shame that in a programme that otherwise had good 1952 period detail, Susan's family car is a Morris Oxford that was built between 1956 and 1959. RGCorris (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for that? Gavbadger (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh No! You wait until the railway buffs get started and take the railway content apart. They already have on some sites.REVUpminster (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't start adding in "errors" that you notice. They may well be true, but they're WP:SYN if you do it yourself. Only critiques made by a reviewer (and not a random forum or blog) should be mentioned. Barsoomian (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers

Wikipedia:Spoiler: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot". This is a content guideline. That is the governing rule.

Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Spoilers is just an essay. And anyway, that says: "Information should not be intentionally omitted from summaries in an effort to avoid "spoilers" within the encyclopedia article." So how clear is that?

People read an episode summary at their own risk. Someone who missed an episode may want to know how it ended. WP doesn't just give them teasers to entice them to watch it or buy the DVD like a TV station's summaries do. It's bizarre to suggest that a separate article be created to put summaries of a three episode series to "protect" a reader from spoilers. Barsoomian (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• You somehow accidently omitted the rest of Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Spoilers. I acknowledge your error and reproduce it below.

"However, when summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers.[4] Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers"

REVUpminster (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• If it was an episode article then I agree it should contain spoilers giving the whole plot away but not in summaries. Firefly (TV series) is a featured article on what is expected.REVUpminster (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The text you cite is an essay, not a content guideline. It's just someone's opinion. Further, it's only your opinion that the "spoiler" "ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers". Your idea about "episode articles" having different rules is entirely your own creation. Barsoomian (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I followed the policy and manual of style that led to this "essay" but as you disagree with it, delete it.REVUpminster (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The policy is at Wikipedia:Spoiler and you have ignored that. Barsoomian (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Special Operations Executive (SOE)

"The Special Operations Executive (SOE) was a British World War II organisation. Following Cabinet approval, it was officially formed by Minister of Economic Warfare Hugh Dalton on 22 July 1940, to conduct espionage, sabotage and reconnaissance in occupied Europe against the Axis powers, and to aid local resistance movements."

The SOE was a real historic org. The article should link to it.-96.233.19.238 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Card images censored

Some of the images on the porn card decks looked fuzz-censored in the US PBS broadcast. Not in the UK? DVD versions?-96.233.19.238 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in the Australian broadcast. They're clear. Manytexts (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

what does "seven(nine)" mean?

Original text for episode one read that events occurred seven(nine) years after WWII. What is that supposed to mean? was it seven, or nine, or somewhere in between, or even that they spanned a two year period. It raises questions which are not answered. The link goes nowhere either. I have removed the (nine). If anyone can find an explanaition (that won't unduly bloat a fairly short summary) feel free to re add it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That edit was done by an IP last year. Was wrong, was not needed. If I had seen it I would have reverted.REVUpminster (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

US PBS DVDs and broadcasts

Please add DVD information to the article.

Because the episode parts are each about 45 minutes, the PBS WGBH broadcasts (in a one hour slot) seem to be quite complete. To fill the extra time, WGBH inserts about ten minutes of extra material (short preview and making-of interview content) before the end credits. Each US DVD includes almost 30 min of extra interviews per series, in one segment. The broadcasts break up this material. At least in the case of the second series, this extra material seems to be substantially rearranged (or different), and probably enlarged, for the broadcasts, compared to the DVDs.

* Series 1
44:53, 43:59, 44:21 -- PBS US DVD (including end credits)
28:09  -- DVD Interviews with cast & crew
44:07, 43:15, 43:30 -- PBS WGBH broadcasts (not including extras or end credits)
about ten minutes of extras added before end credits

* Series 2
45:16, 44:27, 45:09, 43:11 -- PBS US DVD (including end credits)
27:40  -- DVD Interviews with cast & crew
44:31, 43:41, 44:24, ?:? -- PBS WGBH broadcasts (not including extras or end credits)
about ten minutes of extras added before end credits

-96.233.20.129 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)