Talk:Detectorists

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Television: British / Episode coverage Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

I've brought this up before, but as a matter of policy, I strongly believe that the cast listing section or character listing section of articles about TV shows, movies, or books should give information about the characters that are factual only as of their initial appearances. Other sections might reveal more, but, for example, the listing of Andy shouldn't say he is a "recently qualified archaeologist," because that isn't true as of Series 1, Episode 1. Similarly, Becky isn't his wife in Episode 1, so the cast listing section should only describe her as his girlfiriend or partner or whatever. Acsenray (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that cast and characters were kept separate: a simple list of names for the cast and more detailed in-universe information for notable characters.

Keri (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I read somewhere that Mackenzie Crook is the actual creator of Detectorists. Has anything been published about what prompted his decision to create a TV show about metal detecting enthusiasts and the people who love them? What are the origins of the various characters and plot lines? Were parts initially written with specific actors in mind (in addition to himself, of course)? Was Crook involved in hiring the actors? It is always interesting to learn about the inspirational sparks behind a creative project. Unfortunately, that "why" aspect is often omitted in Wikipedia articles, drowned out by the "who, what, when, and where". Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool that someone wrote a summary of the new Christmas Special. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines it should include the ending instead of an open question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernie Wadelheim (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be better for you to fix the problem with a simple edit, then, rather than raising it here and leaving it for somebody else to do? Sprite96 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I am not a native speaker. Bernie (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]