Talk:Garth Marenghi's Darkplace/Archive 1

Does anybody know whether this show will receive a second series or a DVD release?

Confusing Sentence
"A recurring joke is that the character of Garth Marenghi is revealed through his writing of Darkplace."

I have seen every episode multiple times and don't understand what this sentence means

DMRiggs 03:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)DMRiggsDMRiggs 03:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Madeleine Wool

 * Madeleine Wool died during the filming of Darkplace.


 * She disappeared, actually, she's just presumed dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReloadPsi (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Emphasis heavily on dead.
 * They believe she's probably buried somewhere in Eastern Europe. If she got a burial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.22.233 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DVD

 * Amazon.co.uk have the DVD listed (with the name spelt wrong!!) as a July 3, 2006 release - we'll wait and see but fingers crossed (Emperor 01:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Amazon.co.uk now say Jan 07, HMV say Feb 07, Play.com lists March 07... I fear this may never come out on DVD... 80.73.208.101 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the hidden soundtrack also be called an "easter egg" !?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.87.94 (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Twin Peaks
The article states that Darkplace is a parody of 1980's television, yet goes on to mention Twin Peaks as an influence. Twin Peaks didnt air until 1990.


 * yes and this show aired in 2004. i think you're confused--Black Jack Scarron 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I kind of agree with both sides of this. I too thought it was confusing how the article says 1980s, yet 'Twin Peaks' is 1990s. Maybe it should be re-worded to say '1980s and early 1990s' television?


 * It's not not really a parody of Twin Peaks, though, is it? It's much more obviously a parody of stuff like "Britannia Hospital" (the bad old Robin Askwith film) and things like that. Famous Mortimer 15:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The show also talks about strings in a Punch and Judy Show. It's a parody, inaccuracies are allowed and most likely intentional too. ReloadPsi 20:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been catching syndicated reruns of Night Gallery, and some of the episodes are edited down versions of a short lived show called The Sixth Sense. It totally seems like a Darkplace influence because the bad edits to make it fit into 30 minutes are obvious, the basic concept is similar (Dr. investigating psychic and other type pehnoms), bad acting, and dated look of the whole thing.  I wonder if this has ever been documented as an influence of if it is just a coincidence? Vaginsh (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

edit assistance?
I've repaired one typo; but, there seem to be others.

The first paragraph should emphatically declare that there are six episodes, all 2004.

< http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0397150/combined#comment >;

< http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0397150/plotsummary >;

< http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0397150/epcast >.

Hopiakuta 05:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom Hospital
Were there any flying staplers in Kingdom Hospital? Anyway, I've altered the original post to inform that if it was a parody of the Danish version (itself pretty overblown at times) then it came a long time after it.

Fair use rationale for Image:Darkplacecast.jpg
Image:Darkplacecast.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darkplacecast.jpg
Image:Darkplacecast.jpg 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 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 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darkplace DVD front cover.jpg
Image:Darkplace DVD front cover.jpg 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 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 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability
All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose your attempts to impose your stupid narrow-view anti-article views on every page like some petty net-tyrant. Don't you have something better to waste your time on? So yes, I oppose. Kuralyov 03:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you provide real world information to back these episodes, your oppose is nothing more than a simple WP:ILIKEIT opinion. Those are discounted in the long run. TTN 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the guide to television episodes says "If there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, then: create pages for outstanding episodes." As there are only 6 episodes, all must be considered outstanding within the series. TTNITTN says that that plot summaries are too long or too short. 4 sentences is not too long. the guide says "A brief summary of the episode's plot" should be included, and that is exactly as it is.  I agree that TTNITTN is a petty tyrant. Goarlo  —Preceding comment was added at 06:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles
Where have the episode articles gone? I thought the discussion was about merging the articles, not deleting them? Or at least a cleanup request would have sufficed??? Nreive 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I gather they (that is, the only six episodes ever produced), have simply been blanket-deleted by TTN as per his "statement" above. If you do some digging the archived versions can still be found for posterity, or at least until TTN decides to reliquish his hold over the show's episode information, and some else rather helpfully restores the correct location of the episode title links. --Doceo (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Improve references template
I added the improve references template, which someone reverted, asking me to be more specific, so I will.

As far as I can see, this entire article is original research. Please understand that I think this is a pretty good article, and I am not challenging anything specific. However, in line with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOR, all statements should be supported by reliable, verifiable sources.

Of the two sites in the references section, the BBC gives us nothing more than a very broad overview, and the Futon Critic one does not seem to exist any more (leaving aside the fact that it is a non-notable website and therefore cannot be presented as a reliable, published source). This means this article has precisely zero citations, condemning it to the status of original research. I believe the quality of this article would be improved immensely if some good citations were included.

I have added the tag back in. Let's discuss the situation further here before removing it again.

Furthermore, I am removing the second item in the references section, as it currently points to a "page has moved" page that links to something unrelated.

Straussian (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that this article should be sourced, it seems heavy on the sweeping statement (i.e. interpretation posing as fact). But to be pragmatic, I think it's damn near impossible to source this from traditional sources. You can get plenty of mentions from traditional sources, to prove notability, but newspapers and academics papers aren't going to write a wealth of in-depth analysis on this. It's just not got enough mainstream popularity.
 * I think for something like this, to give any supported information beyond the show's basic existence, you have find it in websites, which - while detailed - hardly scream authority. And then make clear that these are just popular interpretations (rather than 'facts'). I found some links. I don't have time to build this into the article now, so if anyone wants to use them, do!
 * Revolution SF, UGO, DVD Times.
 * These are about all I can find that are 'official review' and not fan material. As we're not trying to establish notability here, just to establish views/interpretations on the show, I don't think it matters that these are just websites, rather than something more authoritative seeming. Plus, I recently added some solid links on the Garth Marenghi page, these could be used to establish the main character, which goes part way to supporting this article.The Zig (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's difficult to find "traditional" sources for this subject. But as none of it is controversial, it's not massively important. Let's just leave it unsourced for now, with the improve references template as a kind of warning to the casual reader that this is not authoritative. As and when good sources are found, they can be added. Or someone can have a go at adding in the references you provided.  I might give it a go when I get time. Straussian (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for adding this section in addition to the template. (I was the editor who reverted the tag.) I don't think any of the plainly descriptive stuff needs to be sourced (such as the first paragrpah in the synopsis section) since the source is the primary material (the show) and there are no interpretations made, but there are big OR problems with the claims about which specific shows it is parodying (such as in the second paragraph of that section). I also think the concept section is problematic because it's complete OR and I don't think it's the purpose of WP to explain to readers why a show is (in my opinion) funny. Also, there's some unencyclopedic style/tone issues with the characters section which I might take a stab at. --TM 19:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way - I'm a huuuuuge GMD fan myself - but this article needs a lot of attention,not just citations, before it can get to any standard required of Wikipedia.
 * Current sections needing attention:-
 * Lead-in - I feel this section is rather short. It needs to tell us, briefly, what the article is about. e.g. what it is (it's not just comedy. surely there are sci-fi and horror elements in there as well?). When was it broadcast? Who directed the series? What awards did the series achieve? Current series status?
 * Show overview - Describe the main plot and theme. A show summary should not include such wording as "The premise of the series is...". etc. Also statements such as parody references should maybe be moved into a separate "Cultural references" section. Awards statements should be moved into "Reception" section. Both parody and award statements need appropriate citations.
 * Episodes - It seems to be squashed against the adjacent image of Garth and Dean.
 * Reception - Lots of citations needed here.
 * DVD (release) - Citations?
 * References - One reference for a TV series article? There must be at least a dozen uncited statements in the article.
 * Production – there are currently no production details at all. When was this series created and written, and by who. Casting, filming and other production details are missing.
 * See also the following for guidelines and examples:
 * WikiProject Television/How to write about television programs
 * Doctor Who
 * The Simpsons
 * -- Nreive (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this show
For some reason they need to make more episodes so adult swim doesnt stop airing them. ive grown to like the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizainfini (talk • contribs) 06:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh Nightmare!
This was in the article:

"Matthew Holness as Garth Marenghi (an anagram of Argh Nightmare/it could also be an anagram of Gathering Harm, Rage Harm Night...) who plays..."

This was messy, and obviously had to go. While the recent additions border on vandalism, I do think it's a fair challenge. While Garth Marenghi is an anagram of "argh nightmare", it could also be an anagram of numerous other things. Stating it's an anagram of any ONE, without citing a source gives undue attention to what is essentially original research. Even if we think it's what the creator intended, without a source, it's OR. And including all possible anagrams would go against the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

I had a look for sources, and found nothing to suggest the creators intended any specific anagram. I think the article is just better without such speculation; deleting.The Zig (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. Al.locke (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections
I've noticed that the unreferenced template from the plot section has been removed on the grounds that "the source is the primary material". That's all very well, but you still need to add appropriate citations. I would suggest using one of the following: or

-- Nreive (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Article referenced
It's looking a lot better with references now. However, there are a couple of areas that concern. It's certainly a lot better looking than it was. Well done. - Nreive (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead-in is rather short. Can we include brief Reception details and any other info needed for the intro.
 * DVD section seems a little too fancruft.
 * Production section, or lack of one. I presume that with the nature of the series that there is very little on this subject.