Talk:The Bill/Archives/2010/July

Beth Green leaving date
This is a pretty lame edit war, but... the linked source for Lytton's character leaving has her quoted as saying "I'm only in The Bill until October, then it's finished", and I'm not seeing any explanation as to why this means Lytton is actually leaving in January 2009. Is there a known three-month delay between filming and screening, or something? --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been a couple of days now, so I've changed the article to match the source. If there's an argument for January 2009, feel free to explain and revert. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think theres a six month delay beetween filming and air dates. but whens diane returning? but anyway its wont be more than six months from filming untill the air date, i would't have thought anyway lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minty fresh ety 09 (talk • contribs)

Upcoming character changes
I was just wondering if there was any need for this section? Personally it doesn't add much to the article, and surely it's potentially a spoiler if it has upcoming changes (eg. Beth Green leaving). Could these changes not be written into the bio's of individual characters instead? londonsista | Prod  20:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would agree with that, and there's always plenty of unsourced additions to this section. Schumi555 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did the changes get put back or were they never removed? I agree that they're a magnet for unreferenced changes, and not particularly encylopedic.  -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say keep the section it is good to knows if there's any new arrivals or depatures, if it was on idvidual profiles then it would be looking at each current cast members profile i ain't got the time lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minty fresh ety 09 (talk • contribs)

Merge Proposal
I've made the proposal that most of the "notable storylines" be merged into this article. This includes Sun Hill Explosion 1988, The Don Beech Scandal, Beech on the Run, The Sun Hill Fire (2002), The Sun Hill Fire (2005), Sun Hill Siege (2007), Sunhill Bombings (2008), and Proof Of Life (2008). These storylines aren't actually that notable in the grand scheme of things, moreover the articles are mostly unreferenced and they don't really cover the importance of the subject in the real world. Merged they would probably make an additional paragraph to either The Bill or History of The Bill. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 11:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i say just have a page named "The bill history" or "The bill major storylines" etc. but adding them to the main bill page i recon it would make it a bit to long. also clearly advertise it on the main bill page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minty fresh ety 09 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is that all the articles do is to give a review of the plot.  To be an acceptable Wikipedia article the plot needs to be a fraction of the article, with discussion about the impact on the real world, how the public received the episodes, any changes that they brought to the direction of the show, etc. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  09:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No WAYY it is needed THEBILL1996 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.50.141 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain why? -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 08:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * you can not murge everying thing onto one page suddenly, those pages have remained on there for ages and not been deleated so there isnt any reason, they could how ever have some work done on them, the sollution here is deffedntly not murging them. 84.64.14.35 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - solution is not in merging. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the solution besides deletion?  They remain in-universe, non-notable and unreferenced articles. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  08:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Common vote is against it, you'll just have to act grown up and take the outlook that not everything comes out your way. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 08:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, ok. Ignoring the stupid personal remarks. Do you disagree that the articles are non-notable, in-universe and unreferenced?  If you do, then please explain how.  If you don't, then please answer the question as to what the solution is. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  08:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not a "stupid personal remark" it is an outlook that should be taken in all fairness to you. Deletion is not the solution, these articles can be re-written to make them less in-universe, notable and well referenced. You are taking the easy way out by trying to delete them, rather than editing them to help, everyone knows its easier just to delete something you dont like. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 08:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the issues can be solved, hence why I ask what the solution is. These storylines may be notable in the universe of The Bill, but I don't believe they will ever be in the real world. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 08:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the major storylines shouldnt have their own articles, it should be on a single article with the title of The Bill major story lines or something like that. However they certainly shouldnt all just be merged into this article, it would take up too much space. The Bill is notable enough to justify another article for all major plots / story lines but i dont think a single article just for the 1998 explosion is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually a new section should be added to History of the bill for Major story lines / plots where each of the major storylines can be mentioned with a brief explanation as to what happened. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That could work as long as the REAL WORLD impact of the storylines is covered in as much depth as a rehashing of the plot. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 03:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merger. I was just about to redirect Beech on the Run as it contained no out-of-universe information discussing the episode's notability in the real-world.  If the rest of these articles are the same they should be merged before the inevitable deletion.  Them  From  Space  15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it about time the opening sequence image was changed? The Bill doesn't have that branding anymore....

I've been looking for the new opening sequence logo that Wikipedia can use. However not been able to find one that they can use legally so far --5 albert square (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable guests
I'm sure David Tennant appeared in one episode about 10 years ago. Could this be added to the notable guests section? 86.5.15.51 (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He did indeed. I hadn't realised that it hadn't been added, so I'll add it now. Thanks! Sonnenbarke (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is then end Nigh ?
Rumors have been going around that the bill i being cut to Just a 1 hour episode a week ? is this true ?--Mohammed patel (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes TomPhil 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the new theme and the rest of the changes will probably cause the show's eventual demise too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.178.246 (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Axed in Scotland section
I think this whole section should be cut and merged into a couple of sentences in the Overseas broadcast section. At the very least, I think it should be significantly cut down and moved further down the article as it is more news than encyclopedia. Any suggestions before I have a go myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.39.118 (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current section is too big, however i think its worthy of its own section (not quite sure if it should be right at the top). I strongly oppose it being moved to the overseas section and will revert such a change. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, this is a British show.. it aint "overseas". BritishWatcher (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm i hadnt read the whole thing and didnt know they are now showing the Bill on ITV3 so everyone can still watch it. Id suggest deleting the whole section and just putting in the introduction that its not available on STV since.. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the section is a valid one given that a whole country is missing out on a show that continues to be shown nationwide, but I don't believe it should be quite so near the top of the article. When someone searches for The Bill, I'd expect they're more interested in its history and premise than it being axed somewhere. I think it should be placed after 'History' and 'Setting'. Any thoughts?


 * PS: The section seems to contain weasel words or words to that effect "This move deeply angered ITV bosses, especially as they had just performed a major revamp of the show ...It angered them so much that they decided to repeat the show on Monday nights on ITV 3." No citation is given and dare I say, it's an emotional take on matters. londonsista  Prod  00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Edit - Sentence now changed to be a bit more 'objective'.  londonsista  Prod  00:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Londonsista, reference number 1 clearly states "The move has enraged ITV bosses", however as I cannot copy the article or just copy great chunks of it for fear of being in breach of copyright, that's why I changed "enraged" to "deeply angered". There was also a reference stating that ITV were apparently unhappy with the way STV were behaving over this and the reference did state that was why the programme was now being shown on ITV3. However as that reference is no longer showing it looks like someone edited the article to take out the citation and didn't update the article accordingly. Ah well --5 albert square (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

HJ's to-do list
List of tasks in no particular order to be undertaken over the next few days


 * 1) Add in information gathered so far on audience share and viewer numbers. Search for additional information.
 * 2) Overhaul information pertaining to recent scheduling changes. Add in RSs for impact, reason and other changes.
 * 3) Create a section, or, perhaps a subsection of "impact" regarding awards- a BAFTA, several Inside Soap Awards etc and reference appropriately
 * 4) Properly reference the cast changes and re-insert mention of suicide attempt since I have a RS to back it up
 * 5) Consolidate and probably shorten the information about STV, but mention and reference the dispute between STV and ITV
 * 6) Copyedit, consolidate and tidy up the history section. Might require a total re-write. Reference appropriately where possible.
 * 7) Decrease the size of that bloody contents table. Bold headings could do the job as well as subsections and not everything requires a new heading.
 * 8) Flesh out existing material with the references gathered through my own research and from books. I have ordered a copy of the best book I've come across so far.
 * 9) Check for inconsistencies between the newly re-written lead and the body of the article.

I'll crack on with this when I get chance. Any help would be much appreciated. Likewise, if I've neglected something, please add it to the list- don't worry about the niceties of editing other peoples' posts! HJMitchell   You rang?   04:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Region 4 dvds
Just catching up with all the edits! *Phew!* Top work, so far. :) The Australian Region 4 dvds seem to have been removed from the list. They did originally have reference links, albeit to listings on store websites, but apparently "fell off" at some point. I'll have a look and see if I can find some more "official" references at the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification website. Sonnenbarke (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's been pretty intense! I don't know about the Region 4 DVDs- they weren't mentioned when I got here but it did raise an eyebrow that only regions 1 and 2 were mentioned. Feel free to stick 'em back in if any decent source turns up and any help you can give us on the GA bid would be much appreciated! HJMitchell    You rang?   21:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A big problem with the Australian releases is I think the company has gone bankrupt, so information on them may be more difficult to find these days. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Last "original" actor...
The article states:
 * "Woodentop starred Trudie Goodwin as WPC June Ackland of the fictional Sun Hill police station in London, who later became the last remaining original cast member."
 * "Cole's last episode was shown on November 5, 2009 and his departure means The Bill has no original characters remaining"
 * I think it's hard to claim that Cole was one of the "orginal" actors as he wasn't in Woodtop or the first episode. I do argee that his long term role needs to be acknowledged but not in a way that contradicts other statements in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.133 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed, thanks for pointing that out :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What you've added is much better than any replacement I could think of.  I don't think it's perfect, but at least it isn't out-and-out wrong. 203.35.82.133 (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PC stamp has been in the bill for along time before he was given a name and wasn't a main character he was know as Policeman X.

Sfxprefects (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the was credited as "PC" in season 1. Still hard to justify calling one of the original cast.
 * 203.35.82.136 (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting Axed?
According to this BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8588941.stm) the show is going to be axed this year

""Times change, and so do the tastes of our audience," said Peter Fincham, the channel's director of television."

Ian.hawdon (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's been confirmed and is now on the main article --5 albert square (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)