Talk:Broadchurch

Tone

I've just added a tone cleanup message to the article. I see some work had gone into cleaning up the swathes of unecessary emotive storytelling, but there's still some way to go. I'll try to chip in later should I get the chance, and hopefully this tag'll bring some reinforcements in. drewmunn talk 06:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fred Miller edit

Edited the section on Fred Miller to make it clear that the baby wasn't the killer. Removed identifying information about the killer from the characters section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.185 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:SPOILER, we do not censor, warn of, or redact content considered to be a spoiler. We are an encyclopaedia, people coming here want to know about a subject.  drewmunn  talk  10:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Major Spoiler warning

The original article lists the actor who plays the killer, probably the ultimate spoiler. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a warning? 124.168.85.13 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, we do not censor, warn of, or redact content considered to be a spoiler. We are an encyclopaedia, people coming here want to know about a subject.  drewmunn  talk  10:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Naming the killer in this paragraphs is gratuitous and unnecessary. It absolutely nothing to enhance the article and definitely spoils the series for those like myself came to this page for further information on the cast and had absolutely no desire to unexpectedly and without warning find the series spoiled after only having watched two episodes. FURTHERMORE, the killer is revealed in the episode synopsis lower down the page, exactly where a reader would expect it to be found. Per WP:SPOILER "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served". In this case I fail to see what encyclopedic purpose is being served. Clivel 0 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is being served: we've got a character breakdown, and it would be highly irregular not to note the single defining point about the character. As noted by the spoiler policy, if you haven't seen the series, the Wikipedia article for it is not the place to be if you want it to remain a mystery drama. A reader would expect to be able to identify the killer (around whom the entire series is set) by reading their biography, not by having to read every synopses.  drewmunn  talk  18:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The spoiler is already included in the episode summary lower down on the same page,where it would be expected by a reader. Placing it here is churlish and gratuitous duplication which does nothing to enhance the encyclopedic purpose of the article. All it does is offend those who unexpectedly stumble upon it and if anything make them less likely to want to refer to Wikipedia in the future.Clivel 0 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Lot of a long words there, it sounds like you're grumpy! It is the fault of the reader for coming here, as mentioned above, and we should not cater for people who want to maintain the charade of a narrative. We are an encyclopaedia: we state that Bambi's mum died. We state that Joe was the killer. We do this where it is logical, not in a conservative, underground manner just so people aren't offended. Would you read the A to Z of your favourite TV show before watching the ending? No, because you expect the content of that, especially when that content contains the reveal that is the premise of the show, to be discussed. Something similar happened to me recently with the final series of Luther, and I was annoyed. Not at Wikipedia, mind; I know it was my fault for reading the character biographies before catching up with the episodes in my Sky+.  drewmunn  talk  20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You are being presumptuous as to why someone would refer to a Wikipedia entry. There are numerous valid reasons. In my case I only wanted to find out more about some of the cast members, the fact that this innocent action also spoilt the show for me made me less likely to want to refer to Wikipedia in the future!
It is also completely likely that upon having a show recommended to them many people would want to find out more about the show prior to taking the time to view it. Having the show unexpectedly spoilt for them is not likely to encourage repeat visits to Wikipedia.
My point is that there is no need other than pigheadedness to alienate the reader. The encyclopedic purpose has been more than adequately met by naming the killer in the episode synopsis where a reader would expect that they may find it. Repeating this information for a reader to accidentally stumble upon it is completely unnecessary.
Clearly we disagree, so rather than get into an editing war I am referring it to dispute resolution.Clivel 0 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I will reply at the DRN, but we obviously disagree over how the guidelines should be applied at this case.  drewmunn  talk  21:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Drew, I typically enjoy seeing your responses (at Help Desk and such), but "It sounds like you're grumpy" doesn't really strike me as constructive. Just a thought. Moving along, if Clivel's complaint is that the information is duplicated, it seems reasonable to remove the information where it might not be expected. But Clivel, if you are arguing that the information doesn't belong there at all, I'd disagree. The fact that other people are behind on the series doesn't warrant the exclusion of current information. If you've never seen Star Wars, you could go to the Star Wars article and have every moment of the movie ruined for you. I follow the series Breaking Bad, but I've no intention of doing any research until I'm caught up with the latest episode. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is the duplication that I object to; the double spoiler is unnecessary and strikes me as more than a little mean spirited. I am not proposing that the article be censored, all I am asking is that we remove the duplication, only keeping the version where a reader may reasonably expect to find it - in the synopsis of the final episode . Clivel 0 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyphoid, you are correct, it was wrong of me; all involved please accept my apologies. Clivel, we seem to be disagreeing over this point fairly categorically. I believe, and both consensus and precedence favours this, that such a revelation is important to a character, and should therefore be noted in the character's biography. See, for example, Batman Begins, where a similar revelation is noted in both the plot, and the character biography of the person involved. Without it, and without Joe being noted as the killer, the biographies would be incomplete, which is discouraged by WP:SPOILER, as it is nothing but censorship.  drewmunn  talk  08:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Censorship? That sounds a little melodramatic, the information is already on the page in the correct place, the duplication is completely necessary unnecessary (fix grammatical error Clivel 0 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)).
All I ask for is a little common sense in the interest of user friendliness, especially when a series is current (which it presently is in Canada and probably elsewhere) and many viewers and fans are likely to be searching for further information without having the programme ruined for them. Clivel 0 (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume you meant to say unnecessary there, unless you've had a Heel Face Turn of your own… As I said, this is where we disagree over necessity, and the dispute resolution will have to be the place where this is decided by uninvolved parties. Out of interest, have you seen Batman Begins? If so, do you think the revelation in the plot should be mirrored in the character biographies or not?  drewmunn  talk  18:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

drewmunn, I literally find your opinion inconceivable. The series is, in the U.S. at least, a current series. There is every reason a viewer who is caught up to the current episode might want to learn more about the cast or get caught up between viewings. This viewer would know to avoid the summaries of unseen episodes. He would probably know to avoid the series plot summary. But there is no reason he should expect to have the ongoing mystery of the series ruined for him while reminding himself on whom is whom in a series with a cast this size. Maybe once the series is no longer current in major markets, but certainly not right now. The inclusion of this information in this spot serves in no way to make the Broadchurch Wikipedia page a more complete page, but it unquestionably serves to make it a poor choice of information sources for viewers of the ongoing series looking to refresh their memories. In other words, this makes it a weaker page, not a stronger one. It hurts the entry.
Batman Begins is not a current television program, so that analogy is blatantly specious. In fact, all your arguments seem specious to me. They basically boil down to, "If you want this page to be an appropriate information for a current television mystery series, you're out of luck." Honestly, I find your opinion impossible to entertain. The only motives I can think of for continuing to defend the page in its current state are blind stubbornness or genuine malice. I don't know you; I like to think you're better than that. But I've been thinking about this for the last hour, and those are still the only two motives I find remotely possible for anyone to hold the opinion you espouse. 76.173.54.125 (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@76.173.54.125: This issue has already been resolved on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (see closing comments here). WP:SPOILER is the prevailing guideline, which maintains that spoiler warnings should not be provided, and that information cannot be removed simply because it may spoil perceived personal enjoyment. There is more information in the DRN discussion that may help illuminate your understanding of why this type of information should not be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and not an entertainment guide. Caveat lector. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't info. like this more appropriately placed within Plot Summaries? -Oosh (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oosh, I think that was covered in the dispute resolution as linked above. (I will also point out [respectfully] that this thread is over a year old, so it might not draw new comments.) Spoilers aren't limited to plot descriptions--if there are detailed character descriptions, then readers can reasonably expect to learn noteworthy information about the characters in their writeups. The article on Darth Vader, for instance, states in the lead that he is Luke Skywalker's father. Some might argue that this is common knowledge, but it is intended to be a dramatic, poignant moment in Star Wars and would technically be a spoiler. I would additionally posit that an encyclopedia is absolutely the wrong place to go if you don't want to learn something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Both points taken. -Oosh (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Whomever keeps editing to include the identity of the murderer is being a dickhead troll. I came here to simply look at the cast after watching one episode and learned completely without warning the identity of the murderer, which ruined the series for me. I've taken the references to the murderer out and suggest that others leave it be. The writer/director clearly wanted it to be a surprise, so why sneak it in here and ruin it for future viewers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.54.216 (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI I was the latest to have the series spoiled for me because I went to look up a cast member. Naming the resolution of a detective series other than in the plot summary is simply rude and unnecessary. Nobody is asking that spoiler content be removed. We're asking that it be placed where a reasonable person would expect it. Given the comment in the article, I have not tried to remove it, but don't really understand why the WP:SPOILER policy kicks in when we're asking simply that the spoiler be moved out of the casting section. Ejaxon (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If the murderer is not named in the casting section, then the meaning of subsequent sentences ("The producers knew that this was a critical casting decision" etc.) becomes unclear. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information, not to withhold information because some people might not like what they read. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Trivia

The beach used for location filming seems to be the same one used in the opening credits of the Reginald Perrin series. The underpants discarded by Rossiter are the same ones worn by David Tennant, 37yrs later, now known as the Jurassic underpants.220.244.88.174 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, and I'm happy that you are calling this out as trivia, as it would likely be cut if it were included into the article.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2013

Please add a sentence at the beginning of the characters section as a "spoiler alert as the murder is given away in this section if you have not watched the series and don't want it spoiled don't read the characters section" or please remove the bit on the on Joe Miller "In the final episode, Joe is revealed to have killed Danny." and put a new heading at the bottom revealing the murderer away from this section. i was reading it to find more about the characters i didn't want to know the killer and there was no warning. it is a great series but has now been spoilt as i know the outcome so when i watch it i know more than i should. another friend had a similar incident as well with your current page. thank you merle 124.171.101.221 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. This is the exact reason this article is protected. Per WP:SPOILER, we are in no way meant to censor or warn of spoilers. If you don't want to read spoilers, it's expected that you won't visit the encyclopaedia article on the subject.  drewmunn  talk  08:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is unfortunate that Wikipedia does not have "at this point in the series" articles, like that which was done for Babylon 5 when it was showing. (http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/us/guide/003.html)

On that website, the list of characters and background info was kept to the point of view of someone watching the series; no spoilers revealed in the pages of the early episodes. Joeinwap (talk) 06:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If we were to implement that, we'd end up with a seriously large number of articles, unfortunately. Unlike the example given, Wikipedia covers many television shows, so we'd have thousands of pages that would get very little traffic, while using large amounts of server space. Not only that, because there would be so many, they'd each be relatively lower quality. In theory, it would be good if all shows had their own website that allowed for such 'time travel', but it's not really the best way for Wikipedia to progress.  drewmunn  talk  06:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad link

I noticed that the link for the actor Adam Wilson leads a person who lived in the 19th century. Someone should correct that or remove the link. 81.216.229.12 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed - I deleted the wikilink. Thanks for the heads-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Was episode 5 shown on September 4th?

My DVR did not record anything at 7:00pm on 9/04. Looking at http://www.bbcamerica.com/broadchurch/guide/season-1/ it shows nothing for 9/04 and two episodes for 9/11. Only one episode was shown on that day, episode 6.

Question: Did BBCA actually show episode 5 on 9/04? It looks like they might have sent out bad info so that DVRs did not record that one. (I see that episode 1.05 is available via Video On Demand, DirecTV channel 1264.) Joeinwap (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Article structure

This article needs serious work. It currently lacks a "plot" section summarizing the series content. Breaking down what happens in each episode is fine, but that should not be the only summary - it's far too long, detailed, and not focussed on the summary but on each episode.

Also, episode 8 currently starts with "Someone confesses to strangling Danny...". Highly inappropriate tone. Simply report the events without hiding or obscuring anything. We're an encyclopedia, folks! CapnZapp (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gracepoint

Currently discussed in the lede, and then again under "american adaptation". Since every fact of that section can be found on the gracepoint page, I'll delete the section to avoid needless repetition. CapnZapp (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Character spoilers revisited

Hi, I'm starting this conversation on behalf of some non-regular editors, one of whom contacted me on my talk page the other day, and another who added some comments in the old conversation above. Though I was a vocal objector to removing the content about Danny Latimer's killer from the appropriate character's description, I wonder if it is worth revisiting briefly. Though I wouldn't argue for the removal of the content from the plot section, I can understand the strength of argument that perhaps the spoiler doesn't belong in the character description. On the one hand, (as I've argued above), Darth Vader is called out as Luke Skywalker's father in the Vader article, and that is clearly a spoiler. On the other hand, I also know that MOS:TV says "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real world information on the characters and actors." With that in mind, and with some extra time having elapsed since the heated dispute, I wonder if removing the spoiler from the character description might be a reasonable compromise. Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. IMO there's absolutely no reason that information needs to be repeated in the character summary as well as in the plot section. And honestly, it obviously is damaging a number of people's enjoyment of the show (considering how many foreign audiences are only now getting the show) - I really can't understand intentionally hurting people just because Wiki policy doesn't explicitly ban it. Nothing in Wiki policy says it has to be there or even that it should be there.Starhunterfan (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that there is no reason, since an encyclopedia is intended to be an academic reference that intends to educate, and is not a TV guide or a show primer. There is also the counter argument that if a character is a killer, that is a crucial and noteworthy aspect to the narrative, but I understand your greater point. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This is MOS:TV issue not a WP:SPOILER issue as it pertains to the character entries. Plus the Star Wars example is flawed IMO given it's pop-culture enormity. -Oosh (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia during episode 2 to identify an actor. I deliberately skipped past the plot summaries and went to the cast - where I was immediately spoiled while scanning the cast list looking for the actor playing the priest. I've waited 6 weeks to come back here to avoid any further spoilers. I've now re-read the rest of the cast description. There are illusions made to others who were suspects, with no clear statements that they were proven to not be the killer. So why then is it necessary to ID the killer in the cast list? Certainly, an encyclopedic plot summary should describe the murderer as they are revealed in the show. Cast list? No. It's not expected, and it's not required. Films like Sixth Sense and the Usual Suspects don't identify the major twists in the Cast List, only in the Plot Summary - so why Broadchurch? Alivicwil (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Separating Cast from Characters

I've inserted a Cast List before the character summaries. This should solve the "spoiler" issue without censoring the article. Alivicwil (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:TV, only one method should be employed for conveying the cast and characters. I think the character list is intuitive and useful. A cast list is redundant. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So now we've lost the cast info. from the article body. Not sure this has been a net improvement... -Oosh (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the actors portraying the characters were to be incorporated into the character section, as is normal, and as is supported by MOS:TV, there would be no loss. I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been done yet. But creating a second section that doesn't adequately tie everything together, under the guise of trying to distance readers from spoilers is a bit silly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I didn't revert far enough back. I've fixed the issue, I think. The current version lists the actors who portray the characters, inline with the characters. That is a typical arrangement consistent with MOS:TV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's so very important to include the killers identity in the chartacter summary, should we also add details about Jack Marshall's past and subsequent end, and what the connection is between Susan Wright and Nige Carter? The character descriptions talk about people under suspicion, but doesn't exonerate them. (I would expect this is because of the "real time" encyclopedic style I've read about - they're under suspicion for most of the series, so are described as such in the wiki. ... Regardless of this, Beth's mother and the Scene of Crime Officer appear to be missing from the character list. I added them to cast, but they've disappeared with the revisions. Would it be acceptable for me to add them in the character details? Alivicwil (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that Gran and SOCO are not major characters. But that's just me. I would not remove them from the cast list of someone felt they belonged. As for the other points you raise, Alivicwil, not all plot points need to be included. The revelation of the murderer was major news in Britain and Ireland, and even is getting coverage in the United States. It's hardly a secret. Lesser plot points, such as Jack's past and his character's fate, were not as well-reported, and I would argue probably shouldn't be included. At some point, it becomes less a character description and more a way of sneaking episode information into the article without doing a proper write-up (with cites) of the episodes. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Series 1 vs. Series 2

At some point once Series 2 begins, the Series 1 episode list, cast list, and other pertinent information should be moved into its own article. I suggest that, at the same time, this new article contain information on Series 2, at least in terms of cast list, episode listings, and so on. Spoiler information needs to be carefully monitored for Series 2, to avoid giving away important plot points viewers in countries which see the show weeks (perhaps a month or more) later. (That is, unless BBC is airing it worldwide in close proximity, as they do with Doctor Who and a few others shows.) Comments? Ideas? Good or bad move? - Tim1965 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, with regard to the spoiler aspect, (I notice you already know this and that you have been around for a while) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED (as you know) and there is no expectation that we should monitor spoilers to avoid giving away plot points. A respectable plot summary should be 100-200 words (up to 350 for complex storylines) and should explain the key beats that occurred in the storyline. This is likely to include spoilers. There are presumably thousands of students across the world studying TV in earnest, and need access to crucial plot info without being required to watch the full episodes, because time is short. With respect, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of spoilers! That said, there are ways to write episode descriptions without being too revealing—especially when episode descriptions are supposed to be short (unless the episode is otherwise notable). One of the advantages to this strategy is that the public does not know what plot points are going to be essential to the overall arc of the show. A certain vagueness allows contributors to return to a previous episode and be more specific, which is more desirable than going back and removing specific information and replacing it with other specific information. That way, by the end of the series, the episode descriptions should provide a good outline of the mystery and its resolution (and editing out endless red herrings, which the show is full of, isn't necessary). - Tim1965 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverts because of missing coverage by citation

Very recently User:Tim1965 reverted an edit, that had added a TV channel to the French adaption. Alright, he mentioned "Outre-Mer Fox Crime not mentioned by the citation" in his revert. And yes, the reverted edit had been done by an "IP", not by a user that he could have addressed. Tim1965 still could have added a question her on Talk:Broadchurch, asking for a citation. But it's obviously easier to do a revert and leave the effort with the author of the reverted edit. Right, an IP author can't keep a watchlist and quite probably also does not have a long-lasting intention as a Wikipedia author. I still do regard it as rude to simply remove the 2nd TV channel of the French adaption. I assume Tim1965 is able to quote Wikipedia guidelines that back his action. So by the letter he was right, but I want to encourage others not to follow his style. It's destructive and discouraging. --johayek (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Johayek: Content added should be sourced. The vast majority of content that is added to articles is unsourced, and very often incorrect. If every editor took the time to write pleasant notes everywhere, they would be overwhelmed with pleasantries and the amount of incorrect information and vandalism would be staggering. WP:BURDEN places the onus to provide a source on the contributor. You are attempting to shift that burden back to Tim1965, which is not reasonable. Tim1965 even went the extra step to perform due diligence and check the source. Anything beyond that is on the shoulders of the IP. If the IP resubmits the content with a source, the issue is over. And you too could have looked for the information yourself, and added a source, thus preventing the continued expenditure of time that is not dedicated to the direct improvement of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I am just torn. And I still think authoring for Wikipedia will only go on for very, very long, if social skills will improve.

Yes, there are infos, that should not be added, because they have no backage at all.

But there are also ways to indicate that certain infos are not backed by citations or links.

And true, right here and now we are not improving the article itself but we are only discussing WP authoring and editing style.

And BTW: I actually have rather little understanding for why WP lets IPs author and edit articles.

There is (amongst other problems) no proper way of discussing issues with them.

Maybe we leave it there. --johayek (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Johayek, my friend, look at this edit. To any regular person, this might look like an innocent edit that could be politely tagged with a {{citation needed}} template. The IP adds a few innocent wikilinks, maybe an innocent addition of Qubo as a broadcaster and adding the article to the Qubo category, and, I guess he made innocent mistakes when he added unnecessary periods after Marblemedia and Distribution 360? But to me, it's outright vandalism, because Qubo is not mentioned anywhere in the article with sources, this guy has added this exact same content repeatedly [1][2][3] but more importantly, the person behind it is a long-term vandal who has been adding this, and other disruptive content [4][5][6][7][8] to various articles for months, if not years. So while I understand your perspective, there is another perspective to consider, which is that of the "wikignome", or the people, like myself and Tim1965, who are trying to keep the crap out of articles. That often means reverting unsourced and unexplained additions, even if they might turn out to be correct. The strength of Wikipedia exists entirely in how well sourced it is, and sometimes the best way to deal with that is to demand a citation. I hope that helps to explain a different perspective, and I hope my explanation was friendly enough. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and your username isn't really signaling friendliness, I am sure you know that. Why on earth is this kind of provocation necessary? I am sure you are and adult and mature person. Don't you want to change your name to something slightly more neutral? --johayek (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What's the problem with my username? It doesn't actually mean anything as far as I know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I could have just reverted the anonymous IP without an explanation. Instead, I used the edit summary to explain why I did what I did. johayek, you may find that rude. I do not. Perhaps I could have used a {{fact}} tag. But those things sit there for years, quite frankly, and few people take the trouble to rectify the problem. I, on the other hand, was one of those who helped turn this article from (frankly) an unsourced one making wild, challengeable claims into a decent article which is fully cited. (Although now that's eroding a bit...) I take ownership (sic) of the article, and try to monitor it, so that it won't fall back into the gutter. That's not something most contributors will do. Lastly, the anonymous IP contributor suspiciously inserted text into a sentence which had long been cited and hadn't been edited. It reeked of a contributor who was not reading the Wiki guidelines and was engaged in pure WP:ORIGINAL. That's abusive of the rest of us, who do read the guidelines, who do source, who do copyedit, and who do monitor articles over time. I double-checked the cite, discovered that indeed the anonymous contributor had abused Wikipedia (and all those people who worked very hard on this article to turn it into a good one), and I undid the edit -- with, again I emphasize, an explanation in the edit summary. Ultimately, johayek, it's you who have declined to assume good faith and called me rude, you who have assumed I'm rule-bound and uncaring. How rude is that???! - Tim1965 (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Broadchurch

Cyberbot II has detected links on Broadchurch which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://guru.bafta.org/broadchurch-itv-discussion-david-tennant-olivia-colman-jodie-whittaker

  Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Broadchurch map

Hi. I recently saw in a second-hand bookshop the Erin Kelly first series novelization. The first pages of the book contain a detailed map of the fictional town, which as far as I know doesn’t seem based on the map of an existing place. I think it would be an interesting addition to the Wikipedia articles, but I have two doubts:

• If I make an SVG adaptation of the map, by tracing the original, I’m not sure it goes well in terms of copyright.
• Canon-wise, the map is okay for the novel, but may not be ‘official’ from the series perspective.

What do you think about this? For reference, I uploaded a copy of the map here (it was the French version by Philippe Tullier published by Milady), which can also be found on Amazon.fr. The original version is only partially shown on Amazon.co.uk. Nclm (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030195449/http://metronews.ca/scene/1198915/tennant-new-direction-for-broadchurch-season-2/ to http://metronews.ca/scene/1198915/tennant-new-direction-for-broadchurch-season-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadchurch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129232451/http://www.thebarnscottages.co.uk/book/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Official-Broadchurch-Guide.pdf to http://www.thebarnscottages.co.uk/book/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Official-Broadchurch-Guide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who connections

Broadchurch features a truly huge cross-over of actors and crew from Doctor Who - either before, or after. This is far, far in excess of the usual number one might expect from simply being a British production (The Bill / Eastenders effect). This is surely notable and worth a mention? Not sure exactly where it should go, though. "Cast" section is maybe not right, since it's not just limited to the cast; executive producer Chris Chibnall, for example, was previously producer of Torchwood and later EP of Dcctor Who. Also needs a reliable source noting such. Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Depends if reliable sources have covered the connection Indagate (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)