Talk:Holby

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Holby task force (assessed as High-importance).

Holby City Wards[edit]

There's recently been ward changes (isn't AAU called something different now?) or at least relocation of staff i.e. Lola Griffin. Should we change that about? I'd do it myself but i can't think off the details :S Steveking 89 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic anomaly[edit]

Despite being based on Bristol and often featuring actors with West Country accents, the -by place name ending is of Norse origin and is only found in Eastern and Northern England that were part of Danelaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.101.31 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a source? Remember no original research. Frickative (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try any book about UK place names - this is the stuff you should learn at primary school. 86.138.245.233 (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that obvious, how come six months on you still can't cite a reliable source? 'Any book about UK place names'? Cite one. Frickative 20:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever one is in your libaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.245.233 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're the one that wants to include it, the onus is on you to prove it. Frickative 21:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the discussion below, this information is really more suited to a fansite than an encyclopedia anyway. It's a fictional town, there is no need to speculate as to the origins of its name or the accents of it's residents. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 21:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is relevant, it is the accident capital of England. Anyway, I have shown it to you; you tell me where you live and ill find a book on place names in the libary for you to get out and have a look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.9.137 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fictional town of Holby is not "based on Bristol". It just happens that the first programme set in the town is filmed there and as a consequence, yes, it looks pretty similar and the actors cast in the programmes sometimes have west-country accents. It is still fictional town who's name does not have Norse origins, it's only origins are in the writing room. If there is/was a real place called Holby then absolutely it would be worth noteing as it's origins may be Norse but, like I said, the fiction does not have any history. Any suggestion otherwise suggests that when the programme was first made the writers sat down and spent loads of time researching such things. If that's what you're suggesting then that it's self would need to be cited from a reliable source. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong; it is based on Bristol, yet it is a Norse name (also check out it's v its). You don't need loads of time, just some common knowledge and a book on place names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.9.137 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely stating "You are wrong" does not back up your points. I'm not going to re-write what I said above but to summarise, I'm not saying you're wrong (I'm sure place names ending in -by are of Norse origin), but it is not encyclopedic as in this case, Holby is a fictional town. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to see if an admin will consent to semi-protect the article until this dies down again, on the basis of edit-warring and a complete lack of willingness to actually discuss any argument for inclusion sensibly, beyond 'you're wrong' and 'read a book'. Frickative 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to request a comment but I'll wait and see if the protection helps. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can help here? I had the original BBC publicity for "Casualty" and it was also reported in the "The Radio Times" in their introductory article to the first series; that Holby was a fictional Northern city. It went on to warn about trying to draw comparisons with St. James' in Leeds, saying it was not intended to be them. Perhaps that then explains the name being chosen the way it was?

Only when the BBC started showing outside scenes did it seem Holby was now set in Bristol. This actually was because of the reality of filming in an area with recognisable buildings. Now it has been complicated by the location where it is filmed having being changed again. Unfortunately Casualty started long before the Internet was common and I can find nothing online to confirm my articles about it being originally intended to be set in a Northern city. "The Radio Times" introductory article for the first series will confirm it, but I have been unable to locate that online either regrettably. Hopefully someone else will be able to find it as Wikipedia seem to now find anything not online as unverifiable. Radio Times at that time used to have a little about the front page on the inside, and I think this was where it was stated that it was a fictional Northern city, rather than in the main article itself; which introduced the main characters like Charlie, Josh and Megan.

I normally used to correct the scientific articles on Wikipedia. When I looked up Casualty on here, I corrected the error in it stating that Casualty was set in Bristol, when it was not originally at all. Unfortunately that was deleted and so were my two further corrections as there is no proof online of what I know. I am not used to being treated like that, and now no longer do any work for Wikipedia because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.67.75 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proof does not need to be online. However, what you write must be verifiable (see WP:V). If it is not, then how can we be sure what you write is fact? "I know it's right" doesn't count. Also, referring readers to the talk page in an article is not a valid way to support your claims. I reverted your additions of Aug 26 as no reliable sources were cited and as such the edits consisted of no more than personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.92.193 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail[edit]

I keep putting the excessive detail template back in the article and it keeps getting removed. Like it or not, this article does contain too much detail which is of no interest to most people and is not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a fan site and should not be used as such. Please discuss here if you disagree. Better yet, make changes to the article to improve it and remove some of the unnecessarily detailed information. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should now suffice, but will leave it to you to judge whether you feel the template can now be removed. Frickative (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that comment was intended to be taken the way I took it but either way feel free to remove the template if it's no longer needed. I don't own the article! I was just trying to point out that it needed some work. Thanks for your edits, it sounds much better now. Not like a fan site. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you took the comment, but all I meant was I didn't want to remove the template without a second opinion the article was ready yet. I thought it would be best not to do it myself as my opinion was likely somewhat biased, due to the fact I just spent a half hour condensing it. I'll remove it now :) Frickative (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Sorry. I thought it was intended to imply I thought I was in charge of it or something. :) Thanks again. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being based on Bristol and often featuring actors with West Country accents, the -by place name ending is of Norse origin and is only found in Eastern and Northern England that were part of Da[edit]

This discussion has been hidden as the same topic is being discussed above. Please continue the discussion there instead of adding to this one. Thanks.

Extended content

Despite being based on Bristol and often featuring actors with West Country accents, the -by place name ending is of Norse origin and is only found in Eastern and Northern England that were part of Danelaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.193.138 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the response to the last time you posted the exact same message. Cite a verifiable source, explaining with no original research how this addition is in any way relevent to Holby as a fictional city. Frickative (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant to the article anyway. Frickative recently cleaned up the article to remove intricate, unnecessary details like this so we don't really want to go adding this sort of stuff again do we? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Anderson[edit]

The article says that Sean Anderson is a clinical lead, however, in the most recent episode of Casualty; Jessica said that he'd moved onto St. Luke's after his affair. I'd chaged it myself but the article's locked and I know I'll forget by the time it's unlocked, so just in case I do forget; someone else may have to do it :) steveking89 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole staff bit is unencyclopedic anyway, seeing as it's subject to change every episode, and has changed approximately 7 million times over the course of the two series. I think it's best taken out entirely when the protection is lifted. Gah, I found a piece in one of the broadsheets about how Holby is one of the most ridiculous fictional cities ever the other day, but I can't remember where, now... Separate matter entirely, but drat =/ Frickative 23:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911210943/http://www.roathlock.com/index.php/casualty to http://roathlock.com/index.php/casualty

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722060545/http://www.dr.dk/Bonanza/serie/Drama/Ugeavisen.htm to http://www.dr.dk/Bonanza/serie/Drama/Ugeavisen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]