Talk:Ghostwatch

Untitled
"A phone number was shown on the screen so that viewers could "call in" and discuss ghostly phenomena (the number was actually connected to a local society for psychic research, who explained that the show was fictional)."

Wasn't the number 081 811 8181? If so, the 'local society for psychic research' thing can't be right, as 081 811 8181 was Going Live!'s number (and later became Live & Kicking's too). Thought I'd ask about it here, having not seen the show... BillyH 23:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of shows around that time used the same number at different times during the wek. It could always have been set up to redirect to wherever was necessary. Timrollpickering 10:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did find a source online which stated that the calls were answered by the Society for Psychic Research, whoever they are. I'll see if I can scare up -- er, sorry -- that reference. - Scooter 8 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)


 * The number definitely was 081 811 8181, which was the BBC's generic number at the time. Anyone who managed to get through on the line, was immediately told via a recorded message that the program was fictional, and then given the opportunity to record their own ghost story on to an answer phone.--Edward headwood 13:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The DVD
Does somebody know whether the British released DVD plays in USA computer DVD drives? Jclerman 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

rm alleged spam
Tp User:Finlay McWalter's tag; it's spam; sharing the same title does not make it a relevant or useful link:
 * I find it useful since I couldn't get the video. I consider it relevant for my research since as far as I can tell the clip you are removing has audio from the program - LISTEN to the link. Jclerman 12:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the program. If it were, it'd be an illegal copy. Either way we shouldn't link to it. Links to the same site have been spammed by  and . -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
I've beefed up the criticism section which seems to absolve the BBC of any 'guilt'. There was no reference to Miss Greene's promotion of the film earlier on Halloween morning to children on 'Going Live'. I also removed the word 'supposedly' from the reference to the children reportedly diagnosed with PTSD which was POV. The Fat Contractor 11:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you have any reliable sources to add to the article, do you? The JPS talk to me  11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Halloween was a Friday that year. Going Live was on Saturdays. Sarah Greene appeared alive and well on the show the very next morning after the film was aired, so I'm not sure all this stuff about her promoting it as real holds any water at all. 91.109.254.140 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm I'll think you'll find 31/10/1992 was a Saturday. Unless my Windows calender is lying :) 12:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fat Contractor (talk • contribs)
 * Ghostwatch: Behind the Curtain has acquired the episodes of Going Live for the Saturday before, the 31st, and the Saturday after (http://ghostwatchbtc.blogspot.com/2009/11/well-actually-spool-it-back-to-point.html). No mention of Ghostwatch whatsoever. It seems like this really is just urban legend, unless she made the reference two weeks in advance.78.105.197.49 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Natkk

New templates
I have added templates to two sections in the article (you'll see which ones). These sections are too long compared to the rest of the article, giving undue emphasis to their content. The writing quality of these sections is somewhat less than the rest of the article, and the writer(s) used improper emphasis. Character names do not need to be italicised or bolded everywhere they appear, especially when you have failed to italicise the titles of other programmes and publications. Also, adding emphasis to words simply to create an emotional effect is editorialising. These sections require shortening, removal of fancruft and excessive detail, and style cleanup. I was appalled that so much space was given to non-essential detail about the subject. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sequel
Can anyone provide information on the short story? A plot outline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.190.22 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"The ghost"
I've changed the section on the film's ghost. As the article itself states, it's only referred to as "Mr. Pipes" once. It's referred to simply as "Pipes" far more often, and officially (ie, in the credits) called just "Ghost." Naming the section after, and giving importance to, a name it is referred to by only once (and which itself is simply an honorific of a more used name) seems odd.76.164.65.23 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Behind the Curtains
A huge chunk of this article is basically a blog about what seems to be a fan project on about the level of a DVD extra. Surely information about when a teaser for such a project appeared on Youtube is unnecessary for a Wikipedia article? Considering the excellent nature of the rest of the article it seems a shame the tail-end is hijacked for self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.55.90 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Halloween
Unmentioned in the article is the fact that Halloween wasn't much celebrated in England historically, though there were some related traditions in Scotland and Ireland. By 1992 American style halloween celebrations were starting to enter British culture, but most of the population was unfamiliar with them, particularly the over 30s. When Ghostwatch appeared out of the blue, most viewers had no idea what to make of it. Today Halloween has become mainstream in Britain, and a similar TV programme now would have much less impact. We need a nice WP:RS explaining all this so that it can be added to the article. --Ef80 (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)