Wikipedia

Talk:The Bill/Archives/2010/July

< Talk:The Bill
Latest comment: 14 years ago by 5 albert square in topic External links


Beth Green leaving date

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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)

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)

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

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)

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)

  • 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)


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

Agreed - solution is not in merging. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Common vote is against it, you'll just have to act grown up and take the outlook that not everything comes out your way. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · 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)

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. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · 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)
  • 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)
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)


Is it about time the opening sequence image was changed? The Bill doesn't have that branding anymore....

I've been looking for the new opening sequence logo that Wikipedia can use. However not been able to find one that they can use legally so far --5 albert square (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable guests

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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)

Is then end Nigh ?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Yes [1] TomPhil 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Axed in Scotland section

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
I think the section is a valid one given that a whole country is missing out on a show that continues to be shown nationwide, but I don't believe it should be quite so near the top of the article. When someone searches for The Bill, I'd expect they're more interested in its history and premise than it being axed somewhere. I think it should be placed after 'History' and 'Setting'. Any thoughts?
PS: The section seems to contain weasel words or words to that effect "This move deeply angered ITV bosses, especially as they had just performed a major revamp of the show ...It angered them so much that they decided to repeat the show on Monday nights on ITV 3." No citation is given and dare I say, it's an emotional take on matters. londonsista Prod 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Edit - Sentence now changed to be a bit more 'objective'. londonsista Prod 00:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Londonsista, reference number 1 clearly states "The move has enraged ITV bosses", however as I cannot copy the article or just copy great chunks of it for fear of being in breach of copyright, that's why I changed "enraged" to "deeply angered". There was also a reference stating that ITV were apparently unhappy with the way STV were behaving over this and the reference did state that was why the programme was now being shown on ITV3. However as that reference is no longer showing it looks like someone edited the article to take out the citation and didn't update the article accordingly. Ah well --5 albert square (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago36 comments4 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bill/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is relatively stable and mostly neutral. The article has a range of issues. Although it does not meet the 'quick-fail' criteria, i don't expect that these issues can be resolved i nthe short term. I will place it on hold for the week. It can always be renominated if the issues are not able to be resolved this time around.

General issues

  • The history section is completely unreferenced, as are the ones on DVD releases and novels. Other sections are very short on references.
  • What few references there are, are not adequately formatted - no info on who published some of hte webpages, or retrieval dates, for example.
  • Other sections contain material that is 'historical'. There needs to be more thought given to ensuring each section is about, and only about, the subject named in its heading, and that other sections don't repeat that material.
  • The bit about Scotland is given seriously undue weight, probably as a result of 'recentism'. Related to this:
  • There should be a section on broadcast generally. Two subsections: its broadcast in the UK, of which the Scotland stuff becomes a sentence or two (not as much as at present), then a second subsection on overseas broadcasting.
  • Setting. The text is at times ambiguous about which locations are real and which are fictional. These must be clearly separated. Eg. first sentence, is Sun Hill fictional - the word "fictional" only occurs afterwards, in reference to Canley.
  • "List of episodes" should be simply "Episodes", then the link to the main article, then some actual summary text about episodes. For examples: how many episodes in each series. Were there any live episodes? Possibly the crossover specials mentioned at the end of the article, if they were indeed broadcast as episodes of The Bill, should be covered here rather than in a section on spin-offs etc
  • The "Production" section is under referenced, and not always NPOV. Eg "A lot of effort is put in to the visual style of the series, and into making it realistic."
  • There is no analysis of impact or legacy, though this series must surely have been seriously discussed in all sorts of reliable sources. Impact on how police procedurals are filmed, on plot, on the careers of its actors, on ratings of host TV stations.
  • Related to the above point - no data on ratings? Awards won, either by the show, writers, episodes etc?
  • The cast tables seem very incomplete - are they meant to just be the current cast - whatever they are, there needs to be a lead-in sentence explaining them.

Specifics

(Just a sample of specific points picked up at this stage)

  • "Canley is approximately contiguous with the real London Borough of Tower Hamlets" - yet filming takes place all over London - how do we know that Canley is contiguous with Tower H?
  • In the DVD releases, the language moves between "series" and "season". What is the distinction?
  • There's no info about the date of use, composer etc for new theme music.

These are just some main points. I'll drop in to see how it's going. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, an update on what I've managed to do so far.

I've been unable to get references for the DVDs and Novels section to state when they were released etc. Not sure how to proceed with this. After a lot of searching, I have managed to find refs.

I've tried to format the references to display dates etc but it hasn't worked. Not sure why that is. Could it be something to do with the URL or am I missing a template somewhere? I've added a feature now to my Wikipedia which may help with this. Am going to try this out tomorrow now.. The references should now be referenced and displaying ok. They are displaying ok. Woohoo!!

Revised the section about Scotland. Have created a broadcast section split into 3 parts, England, Scotland and watching The Bill through digital TV.

I've made it clearer which settings are fictional and which aren't.

Episodes - I've gone into more detail for the two live episodes. Also moved the information for the special episodes in Germany up to this section.

I've revised the Production section so hopefully it now adheres to NPOV.

Analysis of impact or legacy - not sure about this. I don't think that there's been any legacy as such. I know that The Bill must do things differently as to how the real Police do things otherwise they'd probably find themselves in trouble for impersonating police. However, not able to find out exactly what they do differently! Google hasn't brought up anything, neither has ITV or The Bill's website, neither have cast interviews. Not sure what, if anything, can be done about this. Section now written for this.

Ratings data - the most recent I can get is July and even then it's not that accurate. July is no good as Wikipedia needs to be as up-to-date as possible so again not sure what to do about this. The programme has won one award, a BAFTA within the last year, more information will be needed on this.

The cast tables are just meant to be the current cast. However not sure what would count as a lead section. I did think of just stating that this was a current cast table but thought that was kind of obvious. I did think about mentioning the ranks of the officers, but that's already mentioned in the table. Not sure what to do with this part. I've written what I think counts as a lead-in section now for the cast table. Also provided a reference for current and past cast members. Will probably totally re-write this section so more information on previous notable cast members is included. Section now totally re-written and includes notable past cast members now.

I will try to get information on how Canley is contigous with Tower H. If I can't get it, it will be removed. No information found so this has now been erased from the article. Also found that some of the information in the settings/filming section may not be NPOV so this information has either been erased or re-worded.

As The Bill is an ongoing series, I'm not sure why the DVD part goes between series and season. Possibly a mistake by whoever entered those details, will change it to read series.

No information has been made available yet that I can see about who the new composer for the theme tune is. Not sure what to do on this one. Now have info on the composer and article is now written about the theme tune --5 albert square (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Drive by comment

I agree with hamiltonstone that this article has a number of issues.

  • The lead needs expanding. Read WP:LEAD. Think of the lead as a short article rather than an introduction. Most readers only read the lead.
  • The table of contents is too long.
  • There is little actual prose. The bulk of the article consists of various forms of lists. See WP:Embedded list
  • See WP:Good article criteria.
  • There are so few cites, and few reliable sources that this is really a quick fail.
  • hamiltonstone is being very helpful, and I would agree that the article requires more work than can be achieved in a review. SilkTork *YES! 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New points

Editors have been very active in improving this article, and it has changed very considerably since I first started the review. There are still many issues, however as long as editors remain highly active, I will keep working through points with them. Here are some outstanding things to be dealt with for GA status, not in a very logical order. I will come back in a few days again.

  • HJ Mitchell has identified a range of high quality sources. These should be used both to ensure existing facts have sound references, and to extend the range of information in the article. Thanks HJ for that work. I see it is already paying dividends.
  • Sourcing (and more detail if possible i think) needs attention for the history section.
  • Episodes section: before we get to the material on live episodes and special episodes, we need some text (where it can be supported by sources) about episodes generally. How many per year, how many seasons, whether they are broken up into series (eg. were there X series of Y episodes made per year or whatever?); how long were episodes (both excluding ads ie. how long is the actual filmed material; and how long a time slot on a typical broadcaster); total number of episodes up to a specific date (take care not to use language like "now" or "currently"). I note there is actually more detail about technical aspects of the show including episode length in the infobox than in the actual article.
  • In my view "Impact and legacy" should probably be one of the last sections of the article, and it should be combined with "ratings and awards". This would be done by having paragraphs on each of the following: impact (includes ratings), awards; and legacy. The section on awards would be prose, and contain sentences such as "The Bill won its first BAFTA award in 1991, for Best Video Cameraman (reference). There followed X nominations across several BAFTA categories, with the show winning A, B and C, most recently in 200x with [whatever award] (references). The Bill has also had success in the Inside Soap Awards, winning "best reccuring drama" category six times, four of them being consecutive. (reference). In 2008 it won a Writers Guild of Great Britain Award for [do we know what for?] (reference)". And so on.
  • Having integrated this material, the nice table of awards become a WP list article and gets booted out of the main article on The Bill, in favour of a hatnote at the top of the section.
  • Minor thing - put punctuation marks before the reference, not after.
  • Don't forget many readers will be non-British. "Overseas" to me includes Britain! Avoid using words like this that implies the reader is a particular type of person, or living in a particular location. Also, don't assume knowledge. The article says it is broadcast on ITV1, but I don't know what that is. Public or private? Free to air or cable / pay? (or at least ensure things like this are hyperlinked - which ITV is in the lead, but not a long way later in the text).
  • Something will need to be done about the tables of cast listings, but let's deal with that later. Have a look at the above for now. Good job everyone. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


comments

  • Thanks for the recognition on the research, we're in the process of getting all the material into the article.
  • I am aware that the history section is somewhat problematic. It's probably the biggest challenge the article faces and one to which we will try to get round. It may require somehting of a re-write.
  • I agree with most of your points on the episodes. There definitely needs to be more prose. However, I foresee a problem with keeping the information up to date if we are to include the exact number of episodes, since it is currently broadcast weekly and has, in the past, been broadcast three days a week. The pattern of episodes/series also seems to have varied over the years. I'll talk to 5 albert square on this, since his knowledge of the series is far greater than my own.
  • OK. My suggestion is pick a date and write the article with numbers etc up to that date. Date might best be the end of the last series / season. Then it can be updated every year or whatever. Of course, this also relies on a reliabe source giving some figure(s). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed on impact and legacy, I've been thinking along similar lines myself. I'll endeavour to find more detail on the awards and what they were for, particularly the WG
  • Again, I was thinking along similar lines with the awards table, I had previously suggested it go into History of The Bill, or do you think it warrants an article in its own right?
  • I have hardly any experience with list-only articles, so I am not a good person to ask. I just know it doesn't work in here. Maybe move it to the History article and ask someone who has done a lot of lists what they think? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As for the punctuation, I'm afraid I must disagree. I am aware that many editors prefer the post punctuation style but it seems to be a matter of personal preference. The MoS, particularly WP:FOOT#Ref tags and punctuation, accepts both but the article should be consistent (I'm working on that).
  • I take your point on the "overseas" terminology, I'll try and alter it to reflect that, although it's a British series, it has been broadcast elsewhere and is known beyond the UK. This should also allow for readers who have no knowledge of the series, I'll also try to contextualise ITV1 and ITV for those unfamiliar with it.
  • I've spent some time pondering the cast section. I'll discuss it and look at similar articles to try and find a way of improving it, since there are no fewer than 5 (I think!) articles on the characters.

Your patience and willingness to work through points is much appreciated. HJMitchell You rang? 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hamiltonstone!

Thanks for your comments. ITV is a free-to-air public company as it is basically paid for by the companies who advertise on it. ITV 3 (the channel that the repeats are shown on in Scotland) is free to air for the same reason but is only available through Cable/Freeview/Sky TV.

The Bill originally aired twice a week in two half hour slots. This changed around 1997 (?) when it still aired twice a week but in two one hour slots. This remained the same until July this year when The Bill had a major revamp (hence the new opening titles) and now airs once a week with a one hour slot and then being repeated on ITV3 on a Monday night.

I am going to go to my local library tomorrow and see if I can get any books out about The Bill, might be able to write a little more about the history then. If not, I'll search for books on Amazon and eBay.

Thanks for everyones help and patience with this :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Progress

  • The table of awards is now at List of Awards of The Bill, where it is better suited and the hard work that has gone into it is done justice.
  • There has been a general tidy up effort and we've made a substantial go of the referencing
  • It's been re-worded to reflect the series' popularity outside of the UK and, as far as I can see, all wording like "overseas"
  • There is a lot more detail on ratings
  • We have much more detail on the awards, all of which is at the separate list article

I acknowledge that there is work to be done yet and User:5 albert square have agreed on a "to do" list. However, we should be able to complete most of these within a few days. The concise version of the list is below:

  1. overhaul and reference history section
  2. reference live episodes
  3. do something (anything!) with the cast section- I'm thinking of removing it altogether or consolidating it to a list of the very most notable characters
  4. get references for the different countries mentioned and the figure (55 I think) of countries in which it is broadcast

Any advice or input, or any observations I've missed, would be much appreciated. HJMitchell You rang? 15:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Response from GA Reviewer

Thanks to HJM and 5 albert square for continuing the rapid improvement of this article. That has been very impressive. There is still a great deal needing doing. This article is the top-level article about one of British television's most significant productions, so it is to be expected that quite a bit of work is involved. I am holding the GA review open because of the enthusiasm of the editors. Here is my latest list of stuff still to do. i appreciate editors may feel disappointed that some things are raised here that have not been raised before, but I previously indicated that my points have never been comprehensive, because there was so much to do. Anyway, here are my current suggestions, and this time the list is getting close to comprehensive (ie. if all these things were done, the article would be very close to GA):

  • The lead will need revision to be a more balanced summary of the main points. Currently it contains some detail on particular issues (relationship with police; controversies) but nothing on other areas (broadcasters, ratings). However I would be happy for revision of the lead to happen after other main issues have been dealt with.
  • At the moment i lean to the view that the material in "History" and "Premise" should be expanded and reorganised to result in three sections, in the following order: "History", "Production and filming" and "Premise and plot". "Theme tune and title sequence" should come after these three sections. "Production and filming" should include information about the production (and any changes in production companies or funding sources), key production figures (creator, executive producers, production company and distributor), and filming, most of which would come from the existing section called "Premise". Info in reliable sources about changes to production values (eg. filming equipment, or episode length) should be covered in this section BUT episode numbers and length in general should be described at the start of "Episodes" (see comment below). The "Premise and plot section" would be left with not much existing text (just the current first sentence and last, short, para), and should be expanded with anything that can be found in reliable sources that comments on the kind of plots that are used or the general approach taken. The current last para of "premise" is an excellent example of the material that should be in this section. The "History" section looks to me to be on the right track.
  • Episodes. I repeat my point made previously that there is information in the infobox, and maybe other info elsewhere, that should be included as a prose introduction to episodes, before we get into detail about live episodes. As well as the current article being deficient in this regard, it also means undue weight is given to the live episodes. This undue weight may still be an issue once general text on episodes has been added, but we should deal with that later.
  • There is a serious need for referencing in the "Notable past cast members" section, but if you are lucky, those refs will be found in the main article on each relevant actor or character. Here's some examples of facts from the first two entries in the list that all need evidence (ie. citation(s)):
  • "Since leaving The Bill, Murray's career has included a stint on EastEnders as Johnny Allen and two films, Rollin' With The Nines and Rise of the Footsoldier";
  • "Since appearing in The Bill, Russell has also appeared in Casualty, Judge John Deed, Heartbeat, Mobile, Waking The Dead and currently narrates Deep Wreck Mysteries on the History channel".
  • There may still be some work to do in organising the headings and content in "Ratings", "Awards", and "Impact and legacy", but leave the structure as it is at present and just build the quality of the material within them. These areas of the article are very much improved.
  • There are still issues with the references, but they are much better than they were. As you continue to develop the article, you should be aware that a few of these references are probably not going to be accepted as reliable sources. An example is the solarnavigator webpage. However, most are now looking OK. We can come back to this issue later if necessary. Try and stick to sites that are not user-generated content and/or un-peer revewed sites and/or blogs.

I know that's quite a list, but the article is going really well and some of these things aren't as hard as they look (!). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Thankyou. There's no nasty surprises in there if I'm honest. I'm in the process of removing a good chunk of information from the "cast" section, I wonder if you have an opinion on the matter? HJMitchell You rang? 16:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is one area where I have been unsure how to proceed. I'm assuming you are particularly referring to the tables. I agree with what i see has been your approach: to have a separate list article comprising cast members of the bill (both past and present) at List of The Bill characters. Not sure whether this would more accurately be called something like List of The Bill characters and actors, whether there should be redirect from "List of The Bill actors" to List of The Bill characters. Anyway, that is another subject. I have changed the current heading "Notable past cast members" to "notable cast members", and suggest that editors include info here on all cases where an actor has played a major part in the bill and also notable acting in other roles. I would only include individuals in this section that meet both these criteria. I would also minimise The Bill-related plot information in this section - it is about the actors, not the characters. I've done some minor tweaking along these lines. There is still the problem of this text being a list, but i'm inclined to leave it as it is unless i come up with some other idea in the immeidate future :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Great minds think alike! I agree with all of that actually and have been having a similar discussion with 5asq where we came to a similar conclusion. Obviously, having the information in the form of a list is less than ideal, but I don't see an obvious solution to that. The current cast was easily solved since the information is duplicated at the list article which, in comparison to some of the other articles on the subject, is actually not too bad. As for the titling etc of these articles, I've already been thinking about these. While we need to focus on The Bill itself, I think an hour or so spent on the others could do no harm. I've had it in my crosshairs for a while and will certainly revisit it in the (hopefully not too distant) future when we've cracked the GA. HJMitchell You rang? 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone! OK, done a bit of work on the article tonight, added a bit about Trudie Goodwin, tidied up one of the refs etc as it wasn't displaying at all. I got my book through today about the History of Sun Hill and one thing it mentions that I'd totally forgotten about is a gay kiss between two of the policemen. In my book it says that the real police were really insulted by this storyline. I was thinking of adding a bit about this say under the impact and legacys section. Would anyone have any objections? --5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
We obviously have the same book! My inclination for the gay kiss would be to keep it to a little more than a mention. I believe it did cause controversy at the time (especially among homosexual coppers) and it was something that The Bill did that no-one else did (or at least did it first). There are quite a few mentions of "beating" Merseybeat, too. I'd completely forgotten that ever existed but it seems to have provided some competition to The Bill when it was on- might be worth a mention? Even if its WP article is a mere 2 sentence stub. HJMitchell You rang? 04:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha, thought it might be the same book! Yeah, what I might do is add a tiny bit more, no more than a sentence or two though, and providing I can work out referencing for this, it will be referenced by my book --5 albert square (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors working to improve this article still seem active, though the review has been open a long time. I'm hoping the referencing issues will get tackled soon. I'll keep dropping in and hold this open as long as editors are busy addressing the GA review issues. Try to prioritise the Ga review issues rather than any other improvements, where possible. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully final comments

This is coming along well. I am making some revisions and copyedits, but i have a few points i cannot resolve myself:

  • The theme tune and title sequence section seems overly long - undue weight is being given to this aspect. Not enough of an issue for GA, but needs fixing. There are some specific problems of clarity in that section which do need fixing at GA:
I will look into this tomorrow --5 albert square (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • In Broadcasting and production, unless i am mistaken, there is no reference at all for the estate filming locations.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you there are some references in that section? --5 albert square (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, thought I was misunderstanding you. I'll look at my book tomorrow see if it's mentioned --5 albert square (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)   Done referenced and updated as one of the locations can no longer be used --5 albert square (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Bill is unique amongst police dramas in that it takes a serial format, focussing on the work and lives of a single shift of police officers, rather than on one particular area of police work." This sounds like a highly improbable claim. At most, it might be unique amongst British police dramas - are you sure a reliable source says this? And what of Hill Street Blues and Merseybeat, mentioned later in the article as similar in nature?
  Done- I've already changed that to "unusual"- The Bill seems to have copied Hill St and Merseybeat in turn copied The Bill but that can be tackled further down HJMitchell You rang?

 Nremoved. HJMitchell You rang?

  • None of the following facts appears to be supported by a reference: "...it is shown on ABC1 on Saturday evenings and was repeated on the digital-only channel ABC2 on Tuesday until September 2009. The Australian screenings are approximately seven weeks behind the UK."
  • Is there a source for this: "with 2360 individual episodes broadcast as of September 2009."
  Done
  • Both in the lead and in Impact and legacy, there is mention of criticism regarding the level of violence the show portrays. To be clear (assuming the sources are clear) i think the article needs to say the high level of violence.
  Done HJMitchell You rang?
  • What is a "crossover episode"? Does this mean an episode involving cast and storylines from two TV shows? Perhaps make this clear?

  Done HJMitchell You rang? 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  •  Y The section on The Bill Uncovered is a bit confusing. It states that they are documentaries. But then we have "Supt. Adam Okaro recounts the extraordinary events..." However, Okaro is a fictional characer. Either these are not documentaries, or this should say the actor's name rather than the character's name. Does anyone know how this should be handled?
Yes. You're correct- a fictional character would struggle (just a little bit) to comment in a factual documentary! I've changed it to refer to the actor, followed by character name for clarity. HJMitchell You rang? 01:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  Done* There is text in the section on novels that is going to need a reference, or to be deleted:

  • "...the episodes are presented in a more serialised style, with the narrative events of separate episodes moving into and out of each other, not unlike the format used in later years by the television series"
  • "An early taboo of the series, that the officers private lives remained off-screen..."
  • "When the novels began to adapt the half-hour episodes (Book Three onwards) there was a noticeable jump in continuity, as the sudden influx of a larger cast of characters meant that not every "first episode" of each character could be adapted. As a result, several characters suddenly appear half way through each book, with little or no introduction as to who they are or where they came from."
  • " The first two books were also published in rarer hardcover editions." (the rarity is the bit that needs the reference).
  • "...because of various unavoidable production problems with that series."

Obviously there are other things that could be improved, but for GA i'd like to see the bulk of these detailed points resolved. happy to discuss. Please feel free to check my copyedits and discuss any that editors don't agree with. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's always something

I just looked at this. It appears to me that The Bill Uncovered are either episodes or spin-offs, but not documentaries, and the article is not accurate in this regard. I will try and fix this for the first of the four items, but the rest need sorting / refs or something. Sorry, but I keep finding problems with accuracy and clarity. Should be sorted soon. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) i fixed it myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This para is almost incomprehensible, and the reference isn't much better. Can someone fix this?

"In the late 1990s, when The Bill aired on Tuesday and Thursday at 8pm, the ratings varied between 7 and 10 million viewers per episode. In comparison to this, EastEnders, which aired on BBC1 at 7.30pm on Tuesday and Thursday attracted on average 14.95 million viewers per episode, whereas, in the same period (October) in 1999, The Bill was averaging approximately 18 million viewers over both its Tuesday and Thursday episodes, compared with D.I.Y. SOS, which aired at the same time on BBC1, averaged 8 million viewers."

Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'll leave this to HJ as he's the copy editor. However I remember it took me an age to find this reference and it really is the only one that can be used. The Broadcasters Audience Research Board are the only company I know of in the UK that make this information available to general public and a google search has just backed this up. I've searched everything from "The Bill TV Viewing Figures" to "TV Viewing Figures" in general and cannot find another source. Sorry --5 albert square (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've reworked the paragraph but I'm afraid I agree on the ref- It would be potentially useful, only it doesn't even mention The Bill. I'll do some research later on and see if I can dig up anything better. HJMitchell You rang? 10:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is something I've just noticed about that particular ref, it updates itself weekly to show these figures. That's the reason The Bill won't be showing as it's currently off air from end October/beginning November until 10th December. If people are wanting to check the info that we've put in the article, all they need to do is look up previous records on that website. If they select the year and the month that we've mentioned the information will appear and it is quite simple on how to work the website to do this. For example if you want the figures for 12-18 October 2008 then change the year to 2008 and select month October and then date 12-18 October from the dates 'section' that appears beside the programme information --5 albert square (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a permalink we can get to a specific week? HJMitchell You rang? 10:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I went back to that data and noticed three things:

  • It did not substantiate the first of the two relevant sentences at all
  • It was incorrectly interpreted in the second sentence, comparing numbers of viewers for one episode of one series, with the combined viewer numbers for two episodes of the other.
  • There did not appear to be a permalink option to the specific month of data.

Accordingly, I have deleted the paragraph. Now I'm going to pass this at GA before I find anything else! Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

HJ's to-do list

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

List of tasks in no particular order to be undertaken over the next few days

  1. Add in information gathered so far on audience share and viewer numbers. Search for additional information.
  2. Overhaul information pertaining to recent scheduling changes. Add in RSs for impact, reason and other changes.
  3. Create a section, or, perhaps a subsection of "impact" regarding awards- a BAFTA, several Inside Soap Awards etc and reference appropriately
  4. Properly reference the cast changes and re-insert mention of suicide attempt since I have a RS to back it up
  5. Consolidate and probably shorten the information about STV, but mention and reference the dispute between STV and ITV
  6. Copyedit, consolidate and tidy up the history section. Might require a total re-write. Reference appropriately where possible.
  7. Decrease the size of that bloody contents table. Bold headings could do the job as well as subsections and not everything requires a new heading.
  8. Flesh out existing material with the references gathered through my own research and from books. I have ordered a copy of the best book I've come across so far.
  9. Check for inconsistencies between the newly re-written lead and the body of the article.

I'll crack on with this when I get chance. Any help would be much appreciated. Likewise, if I've neglected something, please add it to the list- don't worry about the niceties of editing other peoples' posts! HJMitchell You rang? 04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Region 4 dvds

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just catching up with all the edits! *Phew!* Top work, so far. :) The Australian Region 4 dvds seem to have been removed from the list. They did originally have reference links, albeit to listings on store websites, but apparently "fell off" at some point. I'll have a look and see if I can find some more "official" references at the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification website. Sonnenbarke (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been pretty intense! I don't know about the Region 4 DVDs- they weren't mentioned when I got here but it did raise an eyebrow that only regions 1 and 2 were mentioned. Feel free to stick 'em back in if any decent source turns up and any help you can give us on the GA bid would be much appreciated! HJMitchell You rang? 21:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A big problem with the Australian releases is I think the company has gone bankrupt, so information on them may be more difficult to find these days. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Last "original" actor...

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The article states:

  • "Woodentop starred Trudie Goodwin as WPC June Ackland of the fictional Sun Hill police station in London, who later became the last remaining original cast member."
  • "Cole's last episode was shown on November 5, 2009 and his departure means The Bill has no original characters remaining"
I think it's hard to claim that Cole was one of the "orginal" actors as he wasn't in Woodtop or the first episode. I do argee that his long term role needs to be acknowledged but not in a way that contradicts other statements in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.133 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Changed, thanks for pointing that out :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. What you've added is much better than any replacement I could think of. I don't think it's perfect, but at least it isn't out-and-out wrong. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
PC stamp has been in the bill for along time before he was given a name and wasn't a main character he was know as Policeman X.

Sfxprefects (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the was credited as "PC" in season 1. Still hard to justify calling one of the original cast.
203.35.82.136 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting Axed?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to this BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8588941.stm) the show is going to be axed this year

""Times change, and so do the tastes of our audience," said Peter Fincham, the channel's director of television."

Ian.hawdon (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's been confirmed and is now on the main article --5 albert square (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OK, I thought I'd post something about this, with the programme getting axed there are various links on social networking sites that are calling for ITV to reconsider the decision.

As per WP:ELNO links to sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter etc are not allowed and will be reverted by XLinkBot - the bot designed to automatically reverting these links. I would suggest that before adding a link, you look at WP:ELNO to check whether or not it's allowed. It's just that if you add the link, and it's not allowed, then XLinkBot will simply revert the link and place it's form of warning on your talk page. Any questions, please feel free to ask me or ask User: XLinkBot --5 albert square (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bill/Archives/2010/July&oldid=1140441396"