Talk:Time Team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology 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 assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
TV 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.

Contents

[edit] Controversy

Why such little mention of the considerable flak that Time team has received from some academics and archaelogists (mainly surrounding the speed of excavations on the series, and the possible lack of qualifications of some of the 'experts' on the show). I thought this was a fairly high profile controversy? Especially during the Big Dig - which encouraged amateurs to excavate? Magic Pickle 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Create a controversy section if you like. I won't pick at it as I'm aware of some of the criticism they've drawn in the media but be careful to add sources(WP:CITE) to any statements you make and be aware that any unsourced controversial statement may be removed by any editor on sight until sources are provided (This is to try and avoiding angering the subjects of articles and to make a reliable encyclopedia). Here would be a good place to start Channel 4 on seahenge controversy, Guardian news article, Seahenge. As for the big dig I dont have any sources at the moment maybe you can find some? Discordance 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The arguement against the 3-day format is that they don't have time to study things in detail etc etc. The arguements the team put against this is that it isn't meant to be a detailed excavation, but merely a preliminary one to identify possible sites for more detailed studies later on. The timeteam dvd (think it's called 'In your garden' or somthing similar) has a '10 years of timeteam' documentary which features an interview with one of the main guys complaining about the show. He seemed a bit obsessed to me - i'll dig out the interview and maybe write a section. But realy not too much emphasis should be placed on the arguements in my opinion. Joseph_2166 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the opposition to Time Team should be mentioned - but not over-emphasised. I believe that, because of the programme's educational value and its encouragement of public interest in archaeology, professional archaeologists have learned to live with it, for all of its perceived faults. Indeed, some digs are now (increasingly) carried out in conjunction and co-operation with local archaeological units. – Agendum 07:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mick the Dig/Twig

He's an occasional contributor to the series (although once very regular) - but I can't remember his surname - anyone? Stephenb (Talk) 13:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Found and added Stephenb (Talk) 13:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Availability outside the UK?

I know that some of the shows have been available outside the UK. Does anyone happen to know if the current series will be, and if so which channel(s) will be carrying it? RichardJFoster 19:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Richard. Unfortunately, since History International stopped broadcasting the show, I don't know of ANY channel in America carrying Time Team this year. But if you're speaking of a different area (Canada or Australia), I fear my information may not help. Justin Eiler 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a shame. (Yes, I am in America. Oh for iTunes... or something... carrying it) RichardJFoster 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not permitted in Ireland?

This statement in the intro isn't explained on further. I'm not doubting its true (this is the land of regulations), but what does forbid them? --Kiand 15:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kiand. I've removed the statement for now, pending later citation, but some of the comments on the Channel 4 forums make me doubt that it's accurate.
Unless they're worried about Phil staging a raid on the Guinness brewery and causing an incident. :D Justin Eiler 23:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure James' Gate can handle all that Mick & Phil can throw at it; its the C&C cider plants that might suffer a bit more ;) --Kiand 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They do not possess Republic of Ireland archaeology licences, hence they are not permitted to dig in the Republic of Ireland. Ewanduffy 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Team Extra

I've just become aware of a series called "Time Team Extra" and know of at least two episodes done in 1998, where Robin Bush the historian would discuss the week's previous dig and with the help of guest historians help to flesh out the historical period that they thought the artifacts represented, etc. The two episodes I know of are: Time Team Extra, 1998 #01 - Richmond, Surrey, and Time Team Extra, 1998 #03 - Orkney, Scotland.

I think these not only should be added to the list, but perhaps a short section should be added to explain the format, etc... but as I have only seen these two episodes, I don't feel I personally have enough info to do a proper job of it. Jafafa Hots 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just found out that there were a total of eight Time Team Extra programs done, but I have no list. Presumably, they all correspond with the 1998 Time Team shows. Jafafa Hots 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
added, plus added Time Team History Hunters. Jafafa Hots 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers Before Live Shows

I almost edited out a "typo", a seemingly stray number that appreared in the list before a show - then I noticed that there were several like that, and all Time Team Live shows. I am guessing that that uis meant to represent how many short live segments were aired over the course of the weekend, but that isn't clear. If anyone can state affirmatively that that is what they represent, then they (or I) can make a minor format change to make that more clear.... if they do NOT represent that, or nobody shows up to say so, should we just delete them? Jafafa Hots 09:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, with Guinnog's edit I see that it was just a psan of dates in each case that was not being rendered properly, an artifact of someone having linkified the dates, etc. Jafafa Hots 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge from Big Royal Dig

I recently proposed a merge from Big Royal Dig, as I feel that one specific episode (even this one) isn't notable enough to have an entire article of its own (although there are some interesting titbits that would fit well in this one). None of the discoveries were particularly more remarkable that many of the others make on other episodes. FClef, who has done some sterling work on the article, disagrees, and feels that the episode is notable enough to exist on its own. For previous correspondence, see User talk:Scott Wilson#Big Royal Dig and User talk:FClef#Big Royal Dig reply. --Scott Wilson 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSING THE MERGE - a statement from the article originator
As the originator of Big Royal Dig, I was dismayed to note that this merge was proposed by Scott Wilson within a couple of days of my starting the article, withdrawn on my pointing out that the article was incomplete and then reproposed within hours of my completing it. To say that he has "recently" proposed the merge is capricious, the completed article being under 24 hours old. The article hasn't even had a chance to develop a readership. (See correspondence at User talk:Scott Wilson#Big Royal Dig)
So the first thing I would say is, to all my colleagues, please read and enjoy Big Royal Dig.
I remain totally opposed to the merge. If I had not felt this to be special, I would not have worked on an article for this. There is plenty on the Home page of the dig to indicate that what they call this "double celebration" was both "special" and "unprecedented" in terms of its aims and the facilities.
I have contributed to Buckingham Palace, Buckingham Palace Gardens, and Trooping the Colour and various other articles. I see this as a crossover between the archaeological and the Royal fields of interest and therefore feel it warrants its own article.
Notwithstanding Scott's refererences to "the episode", there were four episodes (not one as he says) running throughout the Bank Holiday weekend, a simulcast and a vast website giving blanket coverage. Three palaces were excavated concurrently and the Big Royal Dig handles all three excavations. The discoveries at Windsor and at Holyroodhouse were good, although the Buckingham Palace finds did not meet expectations. (I have cross-referenced Big Royal Dig into articles on the relevant Royal residences excavated but do not summarize on those pages because they belong together in a Big Royal Dig article.)
I have worked hard to produce an article hopefully with pace and interest, that reviews history and structure, with links and cross-references to other Wikipedia articles, website and external sources. The episodes were special in light of their acknowledged timing as part of the Queen's 80th birthday celebrations.
It was further remarkable in that it was the first time that the Queen has given permission for grounds in her residences to be excavated. Similar openings of Buckingham Palace Gardens e.g. in the case of the Golden Jubilee Weekend in 2002 , notably Prom at the Palace, Party at the Palace, and during 2006, notably Children's Party at the Palace, have separate Wikipedia articles too. I raised these originally in the article leader as instances of the Queen opening up the residences to greater public access, but Stephenb edited these remarks out. See my reasons for this and also Stephen's feelings on the matter.
Time Team article is a fairly dry, production-oriented article. It seems mostly to comprise short summaries of work and long lists of episodes. Big Royal Dig could not be more different in content and approach, as anyone reading it would immediately see. (Incidentally, Scott concedes that I have done "some [my italics] sterling work" on the Big Royal Dig article - actually, as at the time of writing, I have generated and done almost all the work on that article.)
With reference, then, to the complete difference in character of the two articles, if Big Royal Dig is merged it will basically wreck the article and its impact. It will also create a long ungainly Time Team article, its content and aims and its intended readership being inconsistent with Time Team. I would not wish to see any of the stimulating copy in Big Royal Dig watered down or links being condensed - Scott Wilson and Stephenb have both praised the article.
I do hope that my enterprise in writing the article punctually and the industry and scholarship I have devoted to it is not to be rewarded with a precipitate, narrow-minded merge into the drier Time Team article - burying the article, diminishing my contribution and denying it the broad readership it is designed for.
I would be grateful for fellow writers and editors to consider how they would feel if they had originated this article and were immediately slapped with a merge proposal in its first 24 hours. I appreciate my colleagues' support in opposing the merge. –– FClef (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Royal Dig

At my request as originator of the page, Big Royal Dig has been deleted. I have moved all the copy into other articles as appropriate. -- FClef (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD ?

Does someone know, if there will be a DVD release of the series ?--Joschkajaeger 13:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been three DVD releases:

01 - Time team Digs - A History Of Britain. 'Time Team Digs: A History Of Britain' includes no less than eight especially made programmes featuring the best and most exciting digs from the series to cover the history of the British Isles. In true Time Team fashion, you'll share in the discovery of artefacts from the Bronze Age, Iron Age, the Roman Invasion, Roman Britain, the Dark Ages, Norman Britain, Medieval Britain and Modern Britain.

From amazing Bronze age finds in Worcester, Dorset and Somerset to the discovery of a missing late 18th Century viaduct in South Wales, and from a beautiful Roman tiled mosaic floor in Cirencester to a fabulous hoard of Italian pottery found in a Spanish Armada shipwreck, Time Team Digs: A History Of Britain reveals a trench full of important historical information and exciting discoveries.

In fact, highlights from more than 50 TIME TEAM digs are featured along with crisp historical narrative from some of Britain's most expert historians in conversation with Tony Robinson.

This first ever DVD set also comes with a host of exclusive bonus special features, including a new introduction to each disc by Mick Aston, the complete 1997 and 1999 Christmas Specials, a thirty minute 'Behind the Scenes with Time Team' report and an interview with Tony Robinson. A must for any fan of the show or anyone who is interested in history or archaeology!

02 - Time Team - In Your Garden. The second DVD is now available and has been classed as exempt from classification.

One thing that struck me straight away, even before it's release was that the cover no longer had Carenza appearing with Tony, Mick and Phil.

This dvd contains eight episodes from several series:

1994 Series, episode 03 = Much Wenlock 1996 Series, episode 01 = Boleigh 1997 Series, episode 03 = Soho 1998 Series, episode 01 = Richmond 1999 Series, episode 02 = Papcastle 2000 Series, episode 02 = Cirencester 2000 Series, episode 04 = Waddon 2003 Series, episode 01 = Raunds

Why they decided to publish these episodes like this is beyond me, as i'm sure a lot of fans are eager to see full series being released.

The packaging is similar to the first dvd that was released. Three dvd's housed in their own plastic tray inside what looks like a big booklet, this slides into it's own case.

Contents of the dvd are further down this page. The first two dvd's include 4 episodes each, but it is the third dvd that will interest the hardcore Time Team fan. With 12 extras to keep us all happy.

There are two picture formats - 16:9 (widescreen) and 4:3 (full screen). The dvd has been released as a region 2 product, meaning that only us in Europe can appreciate it until it becomes available in other parts of the world (if it ever does). However, there are players that can handle any region, and they don't have to be that expensive. But if you already have a player and cannot afford a new one, there are places online that will give you codes to enter on your remote control to enable your player to play any region. Be careful though as these procedures can damage your player if not done correctly. So there are ways you could see it.

It was great to finally see episodes like Much Wenlock in picture perfect quality again, if you have recorded this episode on video back in 1994 i'm sure the video you recorded it on has had its wear and tear. The sound quality is good too, being available in stereo format. It is with this dvd that we finally see subtitles.

This dvd was produced by Graham Dixon; packaging design by e-Digital Design. The authoring on the dvd was done by ITFC.

Episodes on this released run for approximately 7 hours 36 minutes whereas the extras run approximately 2 hours 18 minutes.

03 - The Very Best Time Team Digs.

* Number of discs: 3
  • Classification: Exempt
  • Studio: Channel 4 DVD
  • DVD Release Date: 21 Aug 2006
  • Run Time: 420 minutes
  • ASIN: B000FTJ6W4

Disc 1: Mick's choice - Llygadwy, Phil's Choice - Ancaster, Tony's choice - Wierre Effroy, John's choice - Turkdean.

Disc 2: Helen's choice - Braemore, Stewart's Choice - High Worsall, Carenza's choice - Circenster, Victor's choice -Nevis (Part 1)

The Very Best Time Team Digs are introduced and reviewed by Tony and the Time Team. There is also a wealth of bonus features, including two more digs: Turkdean 2 - the only site that was so good that Time Team went back to do more excavation, and Nevis Part 2 - the 2nd half of Time Team's dig in the Caribbean. Also squeezed in are two episodes of Time Team Extra - the follow-up history programme broadcast in 1998, and last but not least, a new film Geofizz Explained aimed at guiding viewers through the three very different 'geofizz' techniques regularly used during Time Team digs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warpo (talk • contribs)

It's "Geophys" (as in geophysics), surely! Stephenb (Talk) 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode titles?

I don't believe the episodes have on-screen titles, so I'm not sure where they've come from. I shall remove them, and they can be added again if someone can point me to where they are cited as official titles! Stephenb (Talk) 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The names for the 14th can be found here Nev1 17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No it's definitely with 2 zz's... Geofizz... On the extra of the DVD, Tony Robinson explains that the word and it's spelling has derived from their fans.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Time Team logo.gif

Image:Time Team logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offical episode titles

Hi all, i am plannign to edit each series and add the offical epsiode title as annouced by channel 4 when they aired, for ones that there unknown i will leave how they currently are but i want to knwo if anyoen will have objecitons to this--andrewcrawford 13:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New pages for episode listings?

I think the epsioe listings are become to large i think they should be ona serpate page now and i also think specials, time team hunters, digs lives etc should all haev ther eown page. Comments?

I have no opinion on whether to merge or not, but Stephenb has put merge tags on List of Time Team special episodes, List of Time Team Live episodes and List of Time Team Extra episodes, proposing to merge them to List of Time Team episodes. If you click on "discuss" on the merge tags, it redirects discussion to Talk:List of Time Team episodes, so I suggest that discussion of the merge take place there, to keep discussion in one place. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no real opinion on it maybe the extra, history hutners and digs could be merge into the time team but specials and lvie need there own page oen there large and two ther serpate the normal tiem team epsiode it part of the reason think exta digs and histroy hunters hsould eb serpate two as its not part of the nronmal epsiode as such --andrewcrawford 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) but i either way each of the epsiode lists will need work on them to tidy them upa dn re link to other pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs)

[edit] New table format for episode listing

i have developed a new table format for the epsiode listings because there becoame to clutterd and it hard to get the ifnromation from them . comments on it and if no one is objection then ill do the rest to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the table, it's much easier to read. However, I also think it probably needs its own article, (see unsigned suggestion above which i agree with)Ged UK (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
it was me that suggested teh above to my signature doesnt always work unfrtonally

i will start to work on doign it all as table format and then make there own articles after that--andrewcrawford 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now made ti all table format and made new pages for all teh stuff, the information needs tweaking--andrewcrawford 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure all of the individual "series" need their own articles, so I have tagged some of them with {{mergeto}} as they could easily be listed in a single article. The articles also needed an introduction (I have provided a very simple introduction, but someone might like to expand) and category. I have also changed the capitalization of the article names, since "episodes" should not have been "Episodes". Stephenb (Talk) 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

teh smaller of the tiem team shows liek extra,digs and histroy hunters coudl eb merge but there ebtter as there own as there serpate to the many show

but lvie and specials really need there own as there quite large and gettign bigger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode tidy

I've just looked at this article, and its sub-articles, and am going to try and tidy them this weekend. I think that most the episode pages should all be on page, after all its the same programme just spin-offs. If it gets too large then we can split it in other ways (ie have two pages, say 1994-2002 and 2002-present). I will also use the standard template. I also think that the 1991 series Time Signsshould be regarded as a seperate programme, and while mentioned here, not counted as part of Time Teamnor be on the episode list, as it aired before and is a complete seperate programme. I will create an article for Time Signsthis weekend. Let me know if you any problems with this. Thanks.--UpDown(talk) 09:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

i dnt see any problems with that as long as the data isnt lost, what template are you meaning btw? and will you use the current table format which is a lot clearer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 10:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Data shouldn't be lost, unless its trivial data. I intend to use the most widespread episode list template, as seen here Solo (TV series)#Series One (1981) (where I recently added it). Different fields can be added to this, for example see The Simpsons (season 8) (a featured list). --UpDown (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Yeah that looks fine to me but can you keep the coloums Achology type and location as they are important information regarding hte epsiodes and means ti easier to read--andrewcrawford 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Having looked into this further, I am now thinking that perhaps History Hunters, Time Team Digs and Time Team Extra have their own articles, with episodes listed on that article (no need for episode list article with only 8 episodes). They appear to be fairly distinct programmes, with different presenters (in the case of Extra) and duration (Extra again). Let me know if any has any objections...--UpDown (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
as long as the information is not lost a lot of people call for new articles to be deleted, i wouldnt want to see the information lost —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
it be nice to have the archology type/period coloum readded some hwo as it useful infromation unless oyu add it in the description but it is looking quite nice--andrewcrawford 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs)
The "archology type/period coloum" is not needed as this information is in the summary section. I don't think anyone would call for these articles to be deleted, as long I source them well. Articles that avoid others being too long are often welcome. --UpDown (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)