Talk:Arachnids in the UK

Green Death Parallels
I have made a note in this article about the Parallels of this episode to the 1973 Doctor Who serial “The Green Death” as I believe it’s noteworty to this article. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:ACAA:F058:68CF:6737 (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC))
 * Editors aren't supposed to make that call. You would need to cite a reliable source saying that it's noteworthy. DonQuixote (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This Radio Times article discusses "The Green Death", as well as making reference to "Planet of the Spiders" which also featured a giant spider. Perhaps it's worth mentioning these in a see also section, or mentioning them in Critical reception. This is Paul (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All that article does is say 'it's like those two 70s episodes and I really like that.' It calls this a mashup but there's no indication that Chibnall is referencing anything deliberately, it's entirely the reviewer's inference. If it were saying, reliably, that Chibnall was inspired by those episodes, there'd be a reason to mention them in production. As it is, it's a reason why the reviewer liked it, not worthy of bringing up in critical reception.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary discussion of title (let's get this over with)
So, when there's a reliable source indicating the title is a pun on Anarchy in the UK (and there will be), I'm guessing it's only worth mentioning in production, and sourced to a writer or Chibnall. Right?ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Single Subsections
I'm not going to be pedantic about this, but in academia it's recommended that sections with single subsections should be avoided (see ). Also, having Production§Casting is redundant when there's nothing else being discussed. Either Production by itself or Casting by itself is adequate. But apart from pointing this out, as I've said, I'm not going to be pedantic about it. DonQuixote (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated, none of those are a Wikipedia essay, guideline or policy and thus they do not relate here. --  Alex TW 05:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is trying to be a general encyclopaedia. So there's that. DonQuixote (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To explain the last sentence of my revert, I had realised there was a discussion here, so sorry. I still think having a single subsection in a section with nothing else is entirely pointless as Don has said, and just because there isn't a guideline that mentions this doesn't automatically mean this is a good idea. Ted  Edwards  17:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Generally positive" reviews
Might I go ahead and say, it's not every single review that was positive. Lots of people hate this episode. Vincinel (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All the reliable sources in this article indicate "generally positive". If you can find a source that says otherwise, feel free to do so. DonQuixote (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)