Talk:Life on Mars (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia.

Life on Mars (TV series) is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This article was nominated for deletion on September 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was Cancelled - initiated by a banned user.

Contents 1 Anachronisms 2 Second Series 3 Good Article nomination has failed 4 Mention of the Grand National and Red Rum 5 Footnoting

[edit] Anachronisms

I have just fixed the spelling in the 'anacronysms' section, but I'm wondering if this section is even worth keeping. The entries so far are so convoluted that they don't really contribute anything to the article other than a vague feeling of geeky fancruft. Could this list expand sufficiently, given that it is pretty clear to the regular viewer that anachronisms are not being used as major plot points? I think we need to consider the balance between encyclopaedic and unnecessary pedantry. Peeper 10:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're worth keeping, and while they're unsourced and compiled for Wikipedia they arguably breach the no original research rule. —Whouk (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Not worth keeping, for the moment anyway. Angmering 18:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of the anacronysms section was to present information about the show which may be of importance to the ongoing plot, namely that there has been evidence all through the series that Sam has not travelled through time. Should these turn out to simply be errors on the part of the researchers then by all means remove them but at this point there is no evidence that they are.

Furthermore, what kind of 'evidence' would you like? The entry for the Mancunian Way is linked to and shows its construction date, so there's evidence for you. Would you like a production date for Nelson's telephone, too? I'm sure there's a website somewhere or someone could e-mail BT.

As for sourcing, it could be done with photos but I'm wary of making the article look like a scrap book. Zoe.r 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the point of the section, although there are two reasons in support of its removal. Firstly, the point I was making is that the anachronisms (no disrespect but please note how to spell it) listed do not contribute to the quality of the article. My personal view, as I said at the outset, is that they smack of fancruft and are extremely obscure and the likelihood that any of these details might be of importance to the plot is extremely low. Secondly and more importantly, as Whouk points out, it breaches the no original research rule.

I suggest that, unless stringent and well-supported objections surface shortly, the section is wholly removed. If you really wish to keep any of it, then there could be a case for listing the anachronistic music played in the show with its date of release, which can be easily sourced, and possibly including the Mancunian Way, although I don't recall whether this was specifically named in the programme - they may have filmed there but not intended it to be explicitly identified as such. The other information is just not notable. I am not trying to be contrary, just to keep this article at a high standard, which in the main it already is. Peeper 11:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you mean no disrespect, why continue to highlight one spelling mistake? Once was more than enough; drop it.

Secondly, I fail to see what relevance your "personal view" has on the content of an encyclopaedic article. Just because you don't yet know the whole plot of this series does not mean a section of this article should be removed, in fact it works against you - until you know all the facts, you should not be attempting any course of action.

As for the Mancunian Way being identified, a large advertisment for the building of the road is displayed full-screen at 10 minutes, 20 seconds into episode one. I can add a screengrab of this if anyone thinks its absolutely necessary but, as I said before, I don't see a need to fill this article with images.

You seem to have decided that it'd be okay to list the anacronistic music from the series but you're arguing against the rest of it? This smacks of arguing both for and against the removal of this section. You can have it one way or the other.

If you're going to argue for a high standard article surely you should be arguing for the article to be as complete as possible, not just focussing of areas you've decided are relevant to you.

Finally, the anacronisms section does not constitute original research as publication, issue and building dates for all the items listed are clearly already available. Zoe.r 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't mean to cause offence. I only mentioned the spelling as you didn't appear to have noticed the first time, sorry about that. I think you will find that everything here is 'personal view', that's the point of all users trying to reach consensus. I stand by what I have said. Some of the anachronisms are just so obscure that they seem to be more fancruft than serious observations. I acknowledged that some of them are stronger than others (like the music) - but if you want me to choose all or nothing, then I still say remove the lot. Sorry. I appreciate that it can be annoying when people suggest the removal of your own contributions and I hope you will understand that this is all meant in the spirit of Wikipedia. Let's wait and see what the consensus is before we take any further action. If you are upset and want to take this up with me then please feel free. Peeper 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no way upset by this. However, I am going to continue to argue against the removal of a section of this article simply because you don't feel some of its contents are appropriate. If you don't like some of the contents, argue for their removal, not the section they're in. Zoe.r 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought his watch from the last episode was non-contempraneous. I think digital watches at the time were still LED and you had to press the button to see the time. Jooler 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the section should be left in. The views of the watch in the hostage episode were very blatant - anyone who owned a digital watch in 1973 will know that they used LEDs and the LCD variety didn't make a commercial appearance until post-1975. The type shown in the program (dual - LCD and combined dial) is of circa 1985. I have a feeling this is deliberate rather than an error on the part of the costume department. --Johnbyng 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add this into the main section as I don't know all the codes for wikipedia. But there are two visual gaffs in the football episode. 1. After driving teh car into the back of the net at the start - large black sky sat dishes can be seen on the buildings in the background for a few seconds 2. In the final scenes with the man city youth in the background 4 modern air con units can be seen on the building in the background

In all honesty, I'm wary of the modern street furniture and building additions being cited as anacronisms. Air conditioning units and sattelite dishes are fixed to buildings and can't be removed by the TV crew for a few shots. It may be that it was too expensive to digitally remove them from the shots, or they may not have been noticed. Snowflake Sans Crainte 23:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

also a question was del boy produced in the seventies? If not there is a graffiti about it in the episode with the guns. On the grey door near the Rainbow cafe.

No, Only Fools and Horses began in 1981. Angmering 19:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Several items in the anachronisms list should have sources or be removed; for example, the item about "guv" being Metropolitan Police slang. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Series

It was announced at the end of last nights final episode that the show will be returning for a second series next year.Alibabs 00:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we've had this info in the article for a while. It'd been confirmed in a few places — John Simm on Jonathan Ross's Saturday morning BBC Radio 2 show a few weeks back, and Jane Featherstone in the Manchester Evening News. Filming starts in April. Angmering 19:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If they don't begn series 2 with ELP's Karn Evil 9 ("Welcome back, my friends...") I may just lynch them. - Theo T. Herman

Marc Warren says he'll be appearing in the second series as a "baddie" in the latest Radio Times. Some info, if you want to cite it - date, 8th-14th, Article - One Final Question, written by Benji Wilson HornetMike 17:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not worth adding it until we have a section on the individual episode in which he appears next year. Angmering 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Life on Mars (TV series) has failed, for the following reason:

'Filming locations' and 'Cast' should be made into prose instead of being lists, and the 'anachronisms' section seems largely irrelevant and is also a bullet-pointed list - not good prose! Also, the sentence 'A listing of all songs used in the programme can be found here' is not very encyclopaedic - you should just include the link in 'external links'. The other sections are well written and well referenced. Worldtraveller 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The anachronisms section is now in prose but I'm sure it could be tidied-up further and perhaps linked in more with the discussions over Sam's predicament (is he back in time, is he imagining it all, etc). Anyone care to try their hand? Snowflake Sans Crainte 22:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen enough of the shows yet but it seems the key song at the beginning of the episode relates to the story of the episode. The first "Life on mars" dealt with him being out of sync with 1973. The second "Band on the run" dealt with a band of thugs on the run. The third "ball room blitz" deals with a fight in a pub. Black arrow 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of the Grand National and Red Rum

There is a note about an event in episode four (it was previously in episode three and was moved today Aug. 25th, 2006) about Sam trying to help Gene win a sweepstakes on Red Rum in the Grand National. This excellent (sorry POV I know) series is currently showing here in the US and my viewing has brought this note into question. I have been discussing this with Angmering. Rather than copy all of our correspondence to this page click here [[1]] and here [[2]] and go to the relevant postings. I am posting this here in the hope that other wikipedians can help clear up the question of whether this event is actually mentioned in the series. As of today I have been unable to find it mentioned in the five episodes I have seen, but, as I say in my last post to Angmering, I have three eps still to view. In our messages a few other possibilities about this confusing situation are mentioned and I will just say that any help that any of you can give will be much appreciated and cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

With the episode (4, with Warren) playing right here in front of me (UK dvds), the situation is: Sam draws "Proud Percy", Chris tells him it's for the Grand National sweepstakes. Gene then draws Red Rum and Sam tries to swap - but doesn't say why, obviously, claiming he "just likes the name". Gene is suspicious of this and asks Sam if he has any inside info, a thread picked up on later when the police watch the Grand National. None of the others know who Red Rum is. The original scene occurs in the police station just after Sam arrests Warren's employee. Perhaps it was cut? And I 23:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to straighten this out And I. The only scene that you describe that made it into the alleged (dag nab it BBC America) uncut version here in the US is them watching the race on the TV in the pub. Keep enjoying this show and thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnoting

Footnoting needs sorting out to use consistent system: first three are using <ref> : rest is using templates. Morwen - Talk 08:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'm sorry. Much of the article was written before I knew about the <ref> template. I keep meaning to go through it and convert them all to refs — I will at some point, I promise. Maybe this weekend? Angmering 17:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)