Talk:After Dark (TV programme)

Article name
Just changed the name of the page from "After Dark" (Channel 4)" to "After Dark (TV series)". This is


 * more accurate (although After Dark was on Channel 4, it was on BBC more recently)


 * more standard (I looked at a few relevant category pages and "TV series" seemed more common in such cases than the name of the TV network) AnOpenMedium 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Never much liked the lead, which derives from a pretty inaccurate version of this article from some years back. But given WP:COI I didn't feel I should play with it. But now that someone else has taken an interest I have had a go, using the latest improvements but keeping some of the original quote. This is for a couple of reasons: subbing down produced a mistake (sometimes there were exactly "six" guests, sometimes not) but more importantly, I think what is left of the quote gives a fair sense of why the programme is still remembered today, what was unusual about it, and who some of the guests were (including perhaps the most notorious). It's much shorter now and without the over-dramatic quote marks. Hope this helps. AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, the quote does a good job of summarising the feel of the show. We should really rewrite it in our own words, though, rather than just dropping in a chunk of quotemarked text with no context as to who said it. The article as a whole is a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM, to be honest - although it's great to see all the reviews and reactions from the time, the article is rather overdoing it (saying "The Guardian reported that - open indented quote - thirty Labour MPs called for an inquiry" rather than just writing "thirty Labour MPs called for an enquiry" as a fact and sourcing that to a Guardian article), and we'd probably serve the reader better by skimming over some of the less reported episodes so that they don't detract from the significant ones. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am happy to provide material from the files (I have good access to some of the published sources). But I am mindful of the constraints (see User:AnOpenMedium) so generally feel I should hold back. AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on After Dark (TV series). 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/20110719185651/http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/2007/02/16/RTV248507/ to http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031023618/http://www.modculture.info:80/2007/10/retro-tv-wc-26t.html to http://www.modculture.info/2007/10/retro-tv-wc-26t.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514130635/http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/interviews/justinscroggie.htm to http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/interviews/justinscroggie.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113001007/http://tvlistings.thetvroomplus.com:80/listing-489.html to http://tvlistings.thetvroomplus.com/listing-489.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * All seems fine. No idea what the "checked parameter" refers to, sorry. AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on After Dark (TV series). 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/20110608044950/http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=929 to http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/?page_id=929
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610231310/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21021/Terrorist_Speech_and_the_Future_of_Free_Expresssion.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21021/Terrorist_Speech_and_the_Future_of_Free_Expresssion.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

too many newspaper quotes
at least half the article consists of quotes from newspapers. 185.121.6.232 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As the person who found most of the quotes (not only from newspapers but also books, academic journal articles etc) might I refer anyone interested to my comment from 2012, as above (first section on this page: "Lead")? In any case people seem to have found the material useful so will continue to add what I come across from time to time. AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It comes across as fluff and padding. Not at all encyclopedic. The entire article appears to be an overly-detailed love-fest. The relevant manual of style states: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright). --Animalparty! (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup
Following some of the earlier discussions here, and with the obvious problems around COI, excessive detail, tone and endless quotes (tagged for 6 years), I've tried to clean this up. I've reordered things, to make it similar to other TV show articles. I've tried to tone down some of the excessive praise, although it still needs a bit of research to see if anyone has written anything critical of the show. Surely someone thought it was shit?

I've trashed as much of the inappropriate quotes as I could just now. It just was not an encyclopedia article.

I think the sections covering each episode were way too much detail and should stay out, although others might disagree. The Reception section definitely still needs work. IMO the Production section is probably worth reviving, if someone can rewrite it in a much shorter form without the quotes. I don't have the time for that just now. // Hippo43 (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)