![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article lists titles for each episode (Lullaby, ....) but no source is given. These are also on IMDB, but that allows anyone to supply such details and is thus not a RS. The episodes are only numbered on the BBC site, no titles appear on screen. So I have reverted the titles to numbers. 202.81.249.131 ( talk) 19:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you not have anything better to do?
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=23684
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=23807
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=23962
ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 19:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts/london-spy
ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 21:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you stop digging and see a psychiatrist. Shall I give you the authors mobile number? Of course he might be an impersonator. You could tweet him. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The only thing you are proving is that you are an idiot. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 08:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"episode titles can deviate from the title of the script they are based on"
Keep digging! ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Note I am watching this discussion and any further rudeness towards other editors, be they registered or not, might result in restrictions on editing privileges. Graham Beards ( talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not make the changes, but I have reverted your reversion, because it is obvious (as has previously been pointed out) why the unknown editor added them; because they are the titles on the shooting scripts, and how they are identified in discussions about the drama. What do you think you are achieving by deleting them? I could offer an explanation but I would not want to be rude. 88.104.131.244 ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The titles are not just "floating around", nor are made up by "fans" (as you so disingenuously put it) they are taken from the shooting scripts (and as such are used by pretty much every other source - including the IMDB) You do not improve the entry by deleting them. It just makes the entry less informative. Yes that is YOUR contribution. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 19:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It does not matter. I have already given a source from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts/london-spy
I am only trying to make the entry better. If people want to make it worse by taking the titles out it is up to them. It seems that the director decided not to use the titles in the broadcast. The notion that the titles are just made up by fans is pathetic; it is the titles the author gave to each of his final shooting scripts. If you watch the programme they each make sense. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 00:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That is a truly stupid argument and you know it. You think that it is by chance that the name on the BBC script corresponds with the title on the other scripts available online? Why do I have to explain the obvious to you? Do you honestly think that "fans" just made up the names for those episodes? No you don't. All your objection amounts to is that somebody decided not to include the names of the episodes in the broadcast version. Fine delete them. Just stop the bullshit about "fan" scripts. The writer gave each episode names. You want to delete them because the names were not broadcast by the BBC - fine. It makes the entry less informative, that is YOUR contribution as I keep saying. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You don't believe that so why do you keep repeating it. Who are you trying to convince? Are you at all interested in the article or are you only interested in your ego? You want to go off and complain to somebody because the titles have been changed, when they have not been changed, so it is a completely pointless argument. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Completely pointless. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The episode summaries are too verbose. Template:Episode list suggests :"A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode".
I wrote a concise 120 word summary for Ep 4, it was replaced by a 360 word essay. I pointed out the guideline but it was reverted repeatedly. Maybe someone else wants to look at it. I really think all the current "summaries" are bloated. But trying to trim them just turns into an edit war. 202.81.248.99 ( talk) 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that anybody who wants a laugh ought to read the "concise" summary of the episode given by "202.81.248.99". Yes you have been wasting your time "202.81.248.99." You miss most of the key plot points. 88.104.131.244 ( talk) 16:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Yes I wrote pretty much the entire entry. Unlike you I pay attention to what the drama is about, and help people follow it. No sure what you are doing. I could guess but I would not want to be rude. 88.104.131.244 ( talk) 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
They are all relevant to the plotline. Yes EVEN the bit (which I knew you would pick) about him being told to dunk in a bath and change clothes. The relevance of that is that it is the security services that set up the rent boy for Alex, because who else but the security services would want to prevent him having any listening devices. The locked cab is relevant because that indicates that it is the security services who murder Scottie. The depressed episode sets up the justification for the hanging. Even the fact that they return to the same restaurant is relevant. Two versions of Alex. All the other key plot points relate to the theme of love and lying which is the leitmotif of that episode. Danny loves Alex but Alex lied to him. Alex wants (because he loves Danny) to maintain an illusion. Because Alex lied to him he became obsessed with the possibility of detecting lying. Danny loves Scottie but he is responsible for his death. If Danny had accepted the lies he would still be alive. The rent boy does not love his clients, it is a lie. It is for money. The professor mocks Danny for thinking he knows Alex, just because he loves him. The "gushing bloated text" is in your own head - what I wrote is a precise and succinct plotting of the narratives lines. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of the later reviews in the 'Critical reception' section cite comments posted online by individual viewers. Do these have a place here or should we be sticking with the responses from professional TV reviewers alone? JezGrove ( talk) 12:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Will there be a Series 2 - given the open ending?
There are various reasons why the lying-detector program created would not work/would only give limited useful information most of which will readily come to mind. 193.132.104.10 ( talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article lists titles for each episode (Lullaby, ....) but no source is given. These are also on IMDB, but that allows anyone to supply such details and is thus not a RS. The episodes are only numbered on the BBC site, no titles appear on screen. So I have reverted the titles to numbers. 202.81.249.131 ( talk) 19:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you not have anything better to do?
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=23684
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=23807
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=490&t=23962
ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 19:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts/london-spy
ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 21:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you stop digging and see a psychiatrist. Shall I give you the authors mobile number? Of course he might be an impersonator. You could tweet him. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The only thing you are proving is that you are an idiot. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 08:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"episode titles can deviate from the title of the script they are based on"
Keep digging! ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Note I am watching this discussion and any further rudeness towards other editors, be they registered or not, might result in restrictions on editing privileges. Graham Beards ( talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not make the changes, but I have reverted your reversion, because it is obvious (as has previously been pointed out) why the unknown editor added them; because they are the titles on the shooting scripts, and how they are identified in discussions about the drama. What do you think you are achieving by deleting them? I could offer an explanation but I would not want to be rude. 88.104.131.244 ( talk) 16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The titles are not just "floating around", nor are made up by "fans" (as you so disingenuously put it) they are taken from the shooting scripts (and as such are used by pretty much every other source - including the IMDB) You do not improve the entry by deleting them. It just makes the entry less informative. Yes that is YOUR contribution. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 19:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It does not matter. I have already given a source from the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts/london-spy
I am only trying to make the entry better. If people want to make it worse by taking the titles out it is up to them. It seems that the director decided not to use the titles in the broadcast. The notion that the titles are just made up by fans is pathetic; it is the titles the author gave to each of his final shooting scripts. If you watch the programme they each make sense. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 00:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That is a truly stupid argument and you know it. You think that it is by chance that the name on the BBC script corresponds with the title on the other scripts available online? Why do I have to explain the obvious to you? Do you honestly think that "fans" just made up the names for those episodes? No you don't. All your objection amounts to is that somebody decided not to include the names of the episodes in the broadcast version. Fine delete them. Just stop the bullshit about "fan" scripts. The writer gave each episode names. You want to delete them because the names were not broadcast by the BBC - fine. It makes the entry less informative, that is YOUR contribution as I keep saying. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You don't believe that so why do you keep repeating it. Who are you trying to convince? Are you at all interested in the article or are you only interested in your ego? You want to go off and complain to somebody because the titles have been changed, when they have not been changed, so it is a completely pointless argument. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Completely pointless. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The episode summaries are too verbose. Template:Episode list suggests :"A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode".
I wrote a concise 120 word summary for Ep 4, it was replaced by a 360 word essay. I pointed out the guideline but it was reverted repeatedly. Maybe someone else wants to look at it. I really think all the current "summaries" are bloated. But trying to trim them just turns into an edit war. 202.81.248.99 ( talk) 15:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that anybody who wants a laugh ought to read the "concise" summary of the episode given by "202.81.248.99". Yes you have been wasting your time "202.81.248.99." You miss most of the key plot points. 88.104.131.244 ( talk) 16:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Yes I wrote pretty much the entire entry. Unlike you I pay attention to what the drama is about, and help people follow it. No sure what you are doing. I could guess but I would not want to be rude. 88.104.131.244 ( talk) 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
They are all relevant to the plotline. Yes EVEN the bit (which I knew you would pick) about him being told to dunk in a bath and change clothes. The relevance of that is that it is the security services that set up the rent boy for Alex, because who else but the security services would want to prevent him having any listening devices. The locked cab is relevant because that indicates that it is the security services who murder Scottie. The depressed episode sets up the justification for the hanging. Even the fact that they return to the same restaurant is relevant. Two versions of Alex. All the other key plot points relate to the theme of love and lying which is the leitmotif of that episode. Danny loves Alex but Alex lied to him. Alex wants (because he loves Danny) to maintain an illusion. Because Alex lied to him he became obsessed with the possibility of detecting lying. Danny loves Scottie but he is responsible for his death. If Danny had accepted the lies he would still be alive. The rent boy does not love his clients, it is a lie. It is for money. The professor mocks Danny for thinking he knows Alex, just because he loves him. The "gushing bloated text" is in your own head - what I wrote is a precise and succinct plotting of the narratives lines. ERIDU-DREAMING ( talk) 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of the later reviews in the 'Critical reception' section cite comments posted online by individual viewers. Do these have a place here or should we be sticking with the responses from professional TV reviewers alone? JezGrove ( talk) 12:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Will there be a Series 2 - given the open ending?
There are various reasons why the lying-detector program created would not work/would only give limited useful information most of which will readily come to mind. 193.132.104.10 ( talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)