Talk:The Bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bill article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

The Bill was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: October 24, 2005

This article is within the scope of the The Bill WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of The Bill by forming a group to discuss the different ways in which the various articles on The Bill can be improved. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives

/Archive 1 (up to December 26, 2006)

Contents 1 Jeff Stewart attempted suicide 2 Merge 3 I have archived old conversations 4 Craig Gilmore - "Gay Gilmore"? 5 IC 1 , IC 2 , IC 3 6 WikiProject The Bill 7 Added Trivia 8 Recurring character diputes 9 Previous Characters Removal 10 Links 11 New/Old 12 Jim Carver Joins The Met. 13 Constant Changing.. 14 Constant editing of layout and terms in Cast 15 How long characters have been in it 16 Edit warring over character lists... 17 Spoiler tags 18 Past characters list on main page 19 Episodes on main page 20 Mia Perry 21 Old Characters 22 Establishing Notability For Characters/Consensus to Merge & Redirect 23 merge s delete 24 Soap? 25 Eternal Continuity Errors?

[edit] Jeff Stewart attempted suicide

I can't believe this happened: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/btvb-star-of-ithe-billi-attempts-suicide-after-sacking-from-show/2008/01/09/1199554736407.html

How can they fire this guy? Bring Reg back!!! He's the only thing left that's actually decent about this show.. Sp0ng (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Wouldnt it be an idea to merge overseas and other versions it seems silly. Just a thought.... --Camaeron 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have archived old conversations

I've archived all conversations that haven't been updated recently, as there were was a lot of old redundant clutter on the talk page. When starting a new topic please do it on here, at the bottom of the page, with a new sub-heading. Thanks ( Just The Q ) 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Gilmore - "Gay Gilmore"?

There's a bit of an edit war going on about whether the line "is married to Hywel Simons, who played Sergeant Craig Gilmore until 2003." should become "is married to Hywel Simons, who played Sergeant Craig "Gay" Gilmore until 2003." I personally think the references to him being gay is completely unnecessary and should certainly not be mentioned there. The other characters' nicknames are not mentioned at all, especially not in the trivia section. If it were to come to a vote, I would vote against putting 'Craig "gay" Gilmore'. JoshHolloway 20:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally see no problem with it, as it was the nickname by which he was commonly refered to in the series. Jay Firestorm 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about there being a "problem with it" as if there's a problem because you're stating his sexuality, it's just not necessary/appropriate. For instance, Sgt. Dale Smith would not at that point be called 'Sgt. Dale "Smithy" Smith'. JoshHolloway 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be there - it was refered to an awful lot that he was gay but he was never actually called "Craig Gay Gilmore" - it was never a nickname. Therefore, it's not appropriate. ( Just The Q ) 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should not be there. Whereas everyone in the Bill calls Dale Smith, "Smithy", No-one called Craig Gilmore "Gay" as a nickname, and so it is unnecessary. If a reference to the characters sexuality is needed, it should not be in quotation marks between his name. 87.113.93.225 21:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was a nickname used several times by Des Taviner (and a couple of other characters), but as it is commonly seems as it should not be there, I'm happy to go along with it. Jay Firestorm 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IC 1 , IC 2 , IC 3

For years, I was unable to decipher what this code meant, till I sked an ex-police officer, who told me an "IC1" is a "Caucasian", "IC2" is "(South)Asian/Indian/Pakistani", while "IC3" means "black". I would add this to the article, but I am not sure where to place it - it seems a level above "trivia" ! Textbot 07:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think there's much reason to include it in the article, there's an article already. One Night In Hackney 07:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Something in trivia such as "The Bill regulary identifies suspects by their IC Code, just as the Metropolitan Police does"? Needs rewording, probably. JoshHolloway 12:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

203.63.143.122 23:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, I took a look there at IC codes. I see quite a few more there than I remember hearing on the Bill, where I recall only #1, 2, and 3... maybe the TV show simplifies ??..anyway, to re-phrase my original question: is there a place for such information in eg a glossary ??

[edit] WikiProject The Bill

I have created a The Bill WikiProject so we can get together and improve all articles about The Bill. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Bill to have a look! Thanks ( Just The Q ) 13:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Trivia

I have removed the sweeping statement that Louisa Lytton learned all her acting skills from Billy Murray. While I'm sure he was a great help to her, I doubt he literally taught her everything she knows! Smurfmeister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.40.144 (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The trivia that has just been added - I think it's wrong slightly. First of all I thought it was "Right Carver..." and not "Okay Carver..." but I might be mistaken on that. Secondly, I think it was on his wedding day to June Ackland he said it the other time and not in the live episode. Anyone else remember whether these two things are right or not? Thanks ( Just The Q ) 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Okay Carver, let's do thisit" was the first line in Woodentop, not the first episode of The Bill proper (which opens with a sequence featuring Bob Cryer). FiggyBee 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I just checked my DVD (Christmas present ;)) and the line, in Woodentop at least, is "Okay Carver, let's do it"... FiggyBee 02:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure that he said it in the live episode - I'm sure it was his wedding day. ( Just The Q ) ( talk ) 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you come to mention it, I think it may be the wedding episode too. I have the live episode on videotape (must copy it to DVD sometime!!), I'll try to dig it out to check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay Firestorm (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Recurring character diputes

To JayFirestorm (and anyone else who wants to join in the conversation):

Hi - think we should discuss this here rather than going backwards and forwards. Cyril Nri has actually left The Bill and although Adam's leaving story as Borough Commander was that he was taking a sabatical, unless Cyril Nri signs up again sometime in the future, we won't be seeing any more of Adam Okaro.

Secondly, I think this is more controversial than the Adam one, but Amy's mum has hardly been featured at all. The whole of the plot is centred on James and how he copes with the disappearance; his ups and downs in mood and depression. I would hardly count her as "recurring" as we've hardly seen any of her, and I doubt we will see much of her in the coming months either.

Let me know what you think - please reply within the next week with a reasonable discussion - I'm all up for discussing changes and coming to compromises and thinking/debating what should be featured in articles.

Many Thanks, ( Just The Q ) ( talk ) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Characters Removal

Sorry, missed the link at the top with the previous characters, but by that point, do we really need to repeat the current characters on the seperate characters page as well as on the main page? David 23:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, keep it in a seperate list. There is no need to have it twice. JoshHolloway 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Some character links redirect to people with the same names but unrelated to the programme (Smithy being an example, find his name and it links to someone with the same name). I tried to sort at least one but failed. Can someone take a look please? 86.11.100.88 22:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All links go to relevant pages.--NeilEvans 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New/Old

I cannot believe the only reference to there being a 'New' and 'Old' Bill is in some external link at the bottom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.136.35.197 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Jim Carver Joins The Met.

This may be 'Old Hat', but I believe that the whole of The Bill phenomina has it's genesis in a paper-back entitled 'Jim Carver Joins The Met'. My copy of this Book is in storage with a few hundred other books, so I don't have too much more information to hand.

210.215.12.114 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Steve King.

[edit] Constant Changing..

Is it really needed for the constant changing of "Upcoming Characters"?

I understand that as new characters are found out about they should be put up but it seems to be the same stuff coming and going...

For example.. One day there would be a piece about DS Hunter transfering to uniform... then it would go, then it would come back again as if it's a brand new piece of news.

Can someone explain why this happens and does anyone agree that it should stop? Amstoakes 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should stop. At first when the news of Phil Hunter was added there was no reliable source. So it was removed. Also someone keeps linking to character names already linked in the article, even though they only need to be linked to once.--NeilEvans 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constant editing of layout and terms in Cast

Nearly everyday there is a change in the layout of the cast, from DCI to Detective Chief Inspector then back again, linking all the constables together, then separating them into Uniform and CID... can we not stick to just one format for the cast? What does everyone else think? BNC85 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need for the constant changes. Maybe it would be best if we refer it to the people over at "The Bill" wikiproject and see if people can come to an agreement.--NeilEvans 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, people who keep on mentioning the fact that Jack was acting Superintendent for about 3 weeks in 2005 should desist. Especially considering the fact that he went off with his son, and we didn't actually see any difference in Jack for the short time he was acting super. Thetoaster3 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long characters have been in it

In the Characters section, should how long a characters been in the bill be placed next to the name of the character . eg. PC Dan Casper (Chris Jarvis) (2005-present). I find this easy to find imformation to find.

I don't think it's really necessary, if people want to know that info they can just navigate to the characters page.--NeilEvans 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt say its that important to do, i mean like neil said people can go to the character page if they are that interested in finding out how long they have been in it.

[edit] Edit warring over character lists...

I've noticed this going back and forth for the last few days, with nothing in the way of discussion. I'm not a regular contributor on this topic (I've reverted obvious vandalism here but that's about as far as it goes) but I do feel that this is counterproductive for the further development of the article. Why not stop the reverting for a while and try to talk through the issue here, on the talk page? I'm talking particularly to User:Calcon18 and User:Mark bickley here.

I'm not attacking either of you - it just seems from the history that you two have been reverting each other the most frequently and probably should take care not to violate WP:3RR. For the record, I don't even have an opinion on which version is the 'best'. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've also reverted edits. I personally feel that the dates are not needed as this info should be contained in the characters pages. Also as there is no obvious order to the characters, the names of characters should be in alphabetical order. Also feels that the recurring character section is ok and should be left alone.--NeilEvans 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the table. Adding something as major as that, which alters the structure of the article should have been discussed with other editors on the talk page or even taken to The Bill Wikiproject. Hopefully with some discussion we can come to an agreement which format to use.--NeilEvans 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Other shows such as Holby Blue, Casualty, Holby City use tables so maybe this article should have one as well. Calcon18 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From User:Mark bickley ( 84.71.192.107): To be honest, I do not see why I should attempt to discuss the issue of a change when Calcon18 who changed the formatting to the table in the first place didnt do this. I reverted to the origonal formatting without discussion because the formatting was changed without discussion, which I (and as I predicted, several other regular users, including User:NeilEvans) think is perfectly reasonable. The table is big, bulky, unattractive and unneccessary. Had Calcon18 had issues with the origonal list format I would have had a perfectly reasonable discussion with him/her regarding the matter, but as it was done without any form of communication including edit summaries, I'm afraid that I'm not happy to leave the table and will revert any more edits, as I'm sure will User:NeilEvans. Thank you, however, for your independent and balanced interception of the disagreement.

To be quite honest, I reckon it should be organised as it is on thebill.com website. So, Senior officers, cid, uniform, with subheadings for Sergeants and constables so it is clearer. Also, I think that people should try not to remember to remove the link for the main article on the bill characters, as that is not mentioned anywhere else on the page. Thetoaster3 02:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I don't actually think that Inspector Gold is part of "the relief". I'm sure that word is just used to describe the constables and sergeants that go on patrol. Also, a heading for "CID" and "The Relief" seems pretty pointless when there isn't actually any information on the departments. Surely a better heading would be "characters", with "CID", "the relief", etc as subheadings. Thetoaster3 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall several times when Gina has referred to the PCs and Sgts as "my relief". In a real police station there would be other reliefs headed by other Inspectors, which is why I think Gina should be included as part of this relief. User:Mark bickey 17:30, 10th June '07

Fair enough then. I do think that all of that stuff should go under a heading of "characters" though. Thetoaster3 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose a layout now, that looks like this: (The indent means the heading is one below (an @ means normal text) Obviously the actor name would be beside the character.

Characters

Senior officers

@ Supt. John Heaton

@ DCI Jack Meadows

@ DI Sam Nixon

@ DI Neil Manson

@ Insp. Gina Gold

The Relief

Sergeants

@ Sgt. Dale "Smithy" Smith.

@ Sgt Nikki Wright

PC's/Constables (I don't really mind what word is used - the list below would be in alphabetic order, but i cant be bothered right now.)

@ PC Reg Hollis

@ PC Emma Hinckley

@ PC Tony Stamp, etc

CID

Sergeants

@ DS Phil Hunter

@ DS Stuart Turner

Constables/DC's (don't really mind)

@T/DC Kezia Walker

@DC Jo Masters, etc

Other Police Staff

@ Mia Perry (cant remember her title right now.)

Recurring Charaters

@ Ray Moore, etc

The reason for this change, is that it makes little sense having "Senior Officers" And "The Relief" as main headings when there absolutely no information on them other than a list. That is why I feel it would be more appropriate to put it under a main heading of characters. The link to the main list of characters would be at the top of the section, per wikipedia standards.

I have more than John heaton in the Senior officers bit, as on the bill.com website, this is how it's organised. If Sam Nixon and Gina Gold qualify as senior officers on the website of the creators of the show, I don't see how we as mere wikipedians can go against that. I think thats most of the changes explained. If there are no serious objections, I will implement these changes in 24 hours. Thetoaster3 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, it looks neat, organised and is logical. BNC85 10:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In the credits and on thebillbios.co.uk Emmas surname has gone back to 'Keane' so shouldnt it be that on here?

I think that if characters are going to go under a heading of their title (for example, Sergeants) I dont think we need include their title before their name aswell, and their first name should be included. I also think we should keep CID and uniform seperate, as they are really different departments. User: Mark bickley 17:10, 12 June '07

If Emma's surname in the credits, is now Keane, then yep, I think that's how it should be on here. Fair enough about the title. I see your point about cid and uniform being seperate, but I also think that the fact that Jack and Sam etc are Senior officers should be recognised. Having two senior officers sub sections underneath uniform and cid might seem a bit excessive, what do you think? Thetoaster3 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The change to the layout has been made. I still think that the other senior officers should be acknowledged though, and hopefully a consensus can be agreed about that. Thetoaster3 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's all changed ONCE again... BNC85 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks all of tb1983's edits ruin the article? He's blanked the page twice.Thetoaster3 10:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted edits where possible. It appears s/he does not given any explaination in the edit summary either.--NeilEvans 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt Sam, neil, gina and jack all be in the senior officers section as well as heaton because at the moment he is the only one in that section. Mac256 14:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there is a trade off their, if we include Jack, Neil and Sam in Senior Officers, we cant include them in CID, and its just a case of deciding which title is more appropriate. User talk:Mark bickley 22:45 15th June '07

Well technically they are senior officers, and people like jack and gina dont need thier own section because there will only ever be one DCI, inspector, ect. Mac256 10:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well technically the DI's and the DCI are CID aswell... Fair enough they might not need their own section but if we put them under Senior Officers we can't put them under CID. To be honest I think the Character list is okay as it is its nice and clear and aslong as the information it contains is appropriate and its all there then it doesn't really need altering. User talk:Mark bickley 19:10 16th June '07

[edit] Spoiler tags

I've removed spoiler tags from the forthcoming character changes section, because it's clearly marked and self-explanatory. If necessary, use {{future television|type=info}} to signal encyclopedic concerns about the nature of the information and its sources. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have put the spoiler warning back for reasons which I explained in my edit summary. Some users don't like reading spoilers especially those who are not regualar viewers or editors, so a clearer warning would be nice, as the title may not be self explanitary in some cases. Its not doing any harm so I dont think there is any need to remove it. User talk:Mark bickley 22:45 15th June '07

The tag {{future television|type=info}} is more encyclopedic and more accurate. Why not use that? --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Because that tag is alot bigger than {{spoiler}} and I thought it was a compromise to have something small that still gave a warning for those who wanted it but not too predominant for those who didn't want it. User talk:Mark bickley 19:05 16th June '07

It's quite obvious from the section title – upcoming character changes – that the info there is going to include future cast changes. The spoiler tag is just redundant. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that the 'endspoiler' tag is redundant. Fair enough if people are so against it for whatever reason then the title will do for a warning but there is nothing that closes the section. User talk:Mark bickley 14:30 23rd June '07

The next section DVD releases, makes it clear enough that the sectionon character changes is over. I don't think endspoiler should be used without spoiler being used, and I don't think spoiler is needed here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past characters list on main page

The past characters list makes more sense and looks better on the main page. The link at the very end of the page is too small and it is not highlighted to catch people who might be looking for the past characters list attention. One person keeps removing the past characters list and one person alone,if more people remove it then it will stay off but this one person has no right to decide what the main page should or shouldn't look like. Leave the list on it and wait to see how many more people disagree with it's presence being there,thanks.CO19 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

I would refer you to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Bill/Archive_1#Article_size. If others feel that this should go in a section dedicated to the chracters of the bill, as opposed to the main article, then it will be removed. I think that it is inevitable that certain edits will be reverted, and I feel that major changes such as the ones you have made, should be discussed before they are implemented. Thetoaster3 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes on main page

Has it been discussed that the initial episodes of The Bill such as Woodentop (The Bill) be merged into the main article? I have just reverted some edits by user PC Sally is hot but I'm just hoping I'm doing the right thing here. SMC89 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No it has not been discussed PC Sally is known to vandalise articles--NeilEvans 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mia Perry

Does everybody agree that Mia should be in the past character section because now that she has split up with mickey and heaton it is highly unlikely that she will be making any more appearances. Mac256 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Has it actually been confirmed that she's left the show? If not, I'd leave it. It's only been a couple of weeks since we last saw her - there's no point in jumping the gun. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it is likely to be confirmed, but with recent storylines (ie attempted murder and murder of two officers), im sure the press would be interested and yet she was nowhere to be seen. If she was still around she would have been involved, but as it is I agree with user:Mac256; I think she should be added to past characters. user talk:Mark bickley 21:40 11th July '07

The press may be handled off screen or in a background story.. like with amy tennent, it appeared that it had been forgotten about but it was going on in the background.. just a theory Amstoakes 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Characters

On all the old characters it says they are still in it. for example George Garfield is a character... it should be 'was a character'. I changed a few, then stopped because I thought, seeings as it looks like all past characters are billed in present tense,. Something must be happening? Raintheone (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For fiction, present tense is used. Pip is a character in Great Expectations. George Garfield is a character in old episodes of The Bill. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing Notability For Characters/Consensus to Merge & Redirect

Time to get the ball rolling here to restore a semblance of encyclopedic order to the world of The Bill. To summarise the existing problem, per our notability guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT):

• Most individual character articles are written from an in-universe perspective and they fail to establish real-world significance, supported by verifiable and independent third party reliable sources.
  

It is currently the consensus view that Wikipedia is not a fansite and as a result the bulk of the information we provide needs to be centred on the real-world impact of individual fictional characters. This clearly is currently not the case, so remedial measures should be introduced.
Having looked for material about these characters to satisfy our notability and fiction criteria, my conclusion is that demonstrable real-world impact does not exist. But I hasten to add: this does not mean that this is a correct assertion.
Per the recent arbcom ruling, which exhorts:

The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question.

editors are invited to contribute to the question of how individual characters can be improved to meet our standards. What we do not need are !votes unsupported by reference to policy. What we DO need is:

• agreement to merge and redirect characters that fail to establish notability to the main Character list , or
  
• clear demonstration that the assertion above, viz. demonstrable real-world impact does not exist is erroneous, in which case those character articles for which this is true should be retained.
  

It would be salutary if editors could weigh in with specific reference to our consensus notability and fiction policies, since that is where the crux of the solution lies. Providing clear links to sources that substantiate assertions of notability would be particularly commendable.
If no agreement can be reached, I suggest we refer this issue to mediation. However, in the spirit of the arbcom ruling, I would suggest that no action be taken on any character article until some kind of agreement via the above or a mediation ruling has been achieved. All contributions to this question are warmly welcomed. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• I just stumbled into this mess in the process of redirecting yet another unsourced new character bio related to this show. I couldn't agree more with the above remarks. There are a huge number of articles related to the characters on this show, and just about zero reliable sources to back any of it up. It is a shame that no one has bothered to respond to these concerns in the month they have been listed here, and I think it is high time to move ahead. Wikipedia already has a consensus on this issue, by which I mean that, as stated above, all content must be verifiable information backed by reliable sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Let's see if the prods go through. Otherwise, I'll redirect them, since they miserably fail the standard at WP:FICT as you note. Eusebeus (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge s delete

an anon just proposed deletion of essentially all these articles, which I thin kis not a good idea--they could be much better merged to the list--but that means merging the information, which has not ben doe. I think a line or so about the character would be sufficient to give the general context, which is a good compromise. I doubt I'm the best person to follow this up, as I dont know there series. DGG (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've noticed this, I spoke to an Administrator (who had left a message asking if these deletion notices were really necessary) and they said that although this annonymous person has every right to do so, if we can edit / alter the pages, then we can remove the AfD notices... it's very annoying like, all these pages full of information... I agree, DGG, if we could merge all the information into one page... trouble is, how does one do it? ;-) BNC85 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soap?

I find it odd that nowhere in this longish article is the word "soap" used. While it couldn't be classified as such when it first started, it is surely that now, as evidenced by its recent win in the category at the Royal Television Society Awards (see here). Is there a past discussion, now archived, where this has been decided? Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 12:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eternal Continuity Errors?

Someone with knowledge of the event will need to correct the Trivia section of this article. The last bullet point says the the theft of master tapes etc. "which caused continuity problems for all storylines between 2007 and the end of time.". I would fix this but Im not knowledgeable of this event. Thanks. AbstractBeliefs (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)