Jump to content

Talk:Casualty series 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amira Zafar, Agency Nurse

[edit]

Can anyone find out if the character Amira Zafar, an agency nurse portrayed in the first episode by Poppy Jhakra, is going to be part of the main cast or a guest/recurring character? She is not listed in the article, but I think she should not be put in until we know which of the two she is.GUtt01 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amira said in the episode she was going wherever her shift took her next, implying she's left. As far as I am aware she is not coming back. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does not provide concrete evidence that the character is not appearing as merely a guest character. There needs to be evidence from outside the show, not within. GUtt01 (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amira is not appearing in any future episodes, she is not credited in any upcoming episodes and if she is, she can be added back. Soaper1234 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understood. Editors should keep an eye on this, as a precaution. For the moment, let's add her in as a guest character for Series 31, until there is proof she will be a more involved in the series and the show in general. GUtt01 (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have included in the overview, but I would leave it at that until she appears (if she appears) in future episodes. She definitely isn't a regular cast member though. Soaper1234 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Episode numbering conflict

[edit]

@Soaper1234: I'm a bit unsure about what to do with the episode numbering for this series now. BBC Media Centre have published today that the episode titled: "Night of the Loving Dead" will be airing on 22 October 2016[1]. On the BBC website, "Too Much Love Will Kill You" has been put down as the seventh episode of the series[2], whereas Radio Times state it to be the eighth episode[3]. So, as "Night of the Loving Dead" is airing on 22 October 2016, the BBC will class this episode as the ninth episode in the series – however, as you've probably seen in the reference for the episode title which is currently present, the image provided on Twitter by Amanda Mealing states "Night of the Loving Dead" to be episode ten. So now there's a conflict in episode numbering, do we use the BBC website as the source and change episode ten to episode nine instead, or count episode one as two episodes (which is what Radio Times have done and what was done on the article originally) and increase each episode number by one? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: I'd stick with BBC credits for now as they are technically a better source than RT, if anything changes further down the line then we can look at it again. Soaper1234 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times episodes

[edit]

@Soaper1234: Just thought I would come here for this: I think Radio Times is not a very accurate source for episodes at this moment in time. I checked the episode "Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep" (which according to RT is S31-E45(?!)) against the BBC episode schedule and noticed that BBC states "Roadman" will be airing on 3 June 2017 instead. Of course, the BBC website is technically the most reliable source in this scenario. It might be best to double check episode titles put on Radio Times's website against the BBC website for a few weeks, just so that we ensure we are adding the correct information. (P.S - sorry about undoing the edits that you had literally just done beforehand, you had just gotten to editing the page before me.) ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectrodeandtheAnode: I agree. Let's follow the BBC website as it is a more reliable source. And don't worry about undoing the actions, I did undo yours previously too! Soaper1234 - talk 15:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Episode count: 45

[edit]

@Soaper1234: Hi again Soaper1234, just wondering what thought about the following: the number of episodes in Series 31 is definitely 45. This was confirmed by Cathy Shipton's Tweet. This would also mean that "Too Old for This Shift" was, in fact, overall episode numbers: 1005–06, and that it was series numbers: 1–2. This would also explain why "Night of the Loving" dead was Episode 10 (as shown in the script spoiler picture from Amanda Mealing), as all the episode numbers effectively increase by one - making Episode 9 ("Night of the Loving Dead") actually Episode 10. What I'm proposing is to change the episode numbers accordingly. If you agree, then I will go ahead and edit the series number and episode numbers ASAP, so that the series consists of 45 episodes, as opposed to the original 43. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would say that series 31 has a total of 44 episodes since the opening was classed as one episode, not two, in several reports - most directly from the BBC. I think what has happened is that it has been classed as two for its length in production, but here we should class this series as having 44 episodes. Do any others editors have any ideas about the issue? Soaper1234 - talk 21:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit this series has been baffling with its episode numbering; so much confliction. Counting the series as 44 episodes would be more straightforward, and would also make sense. In that case, I will agree with you and say that I think the episode number should be changed to 44 for this series. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at metadata from BBC promotional images of the first episode at different points in the episode from the beginning and the end it does definitely suggest that they are counted as two episodes as Soper1234 mentioned above. Plus there is also two writers.
  • Programme Name: Casualty 30 - Series 31 - TX: n/a - Episode: Casualty 30 1 (No. 1)
  • Programme Name: Casualty 30 - Series 31 - TX: n/a - Episode: Casualty 30 2 (No. 2)

I would suggest counting it the first episode as two to get an accurate overall episode count or if it's decided against just make a note of it. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following these responses, I have changed the episode count to 45 episodes. In the cast section, I have left any cast appearances in the feature-length episode as stating episode 1 rather than episode 1−2 but if anyone feels it should be 1-2, please discuss. Feel free to also correct any mistakes that I have made. Soaper1234 - talk 19:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ElectrodeandtheAnode and Kelvin 101: The BBC have updated the episode count for series 31 to 45 episodes, including "Too Old for This Shift" as one episode (episode 1), suggesting that "One" is not the series finale.... I'm not sure where to go with this one and it has been said several times that "One" is the series finale and it is incredibly frustrating to potentially have to adjust all the numbers back again! Later signed by Soaper1234 - talk 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Soaper1234: you forgot to sign your post, Soaper – so I didn't get your ping. Leave the episode number as it is at 45, because the BBC have stated that "One" is the series finale episode. I'd personally ignore the fact that the BBC have now put "One" as Episode 44 - they will probably amend the episode guide next Friday. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ElectrodeandtheAnode: I would be more than happy with that. Soaper1234 - talk 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the BBC site, not only is "One" listed as episode 44, but also literally as "Episode 44 of 45" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09021xn, further suggesting that there will be one more episode. 86.25.131.8 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above users have mentioned, that will most likely be amended soon. I have noticed recently that most synopsis for "One" state it is the last in the series. Soaper1234 - talk 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's any help, Soaplife says "One" marks the end of the show's 30th anniversary year and is the last episode before the show takes a two-week break. While Inside Soap has it down as the last in the series. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With everything indicating towards "One" being the series finale, I would prefer to have the anniversary episode as one episode, rather than two and change the overall count to 44. However, if others would prefer to leave it at 45 episodes, I would be fine with this. Soaper1234 - talk 07:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer "Too Old for This Shift" to remain as episodes 1 and 2. I say this because the production team at Casualty have included it as a two-in-one episode. Furthermore, Jeff Povey's script title page says "Episode 10" for "Night of the Loving Dead" - at the moment, Episode 10 is "Night of the Loving Dead". In addition to this, Catherine Shipton states there being 45 episodes in this series. So if we look at this from the perspective of the BBC, the actors, and the production team behind the scenes, we are effectively looking at a 45 episode span. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy enough to do this, although I think it is worth mentioning that the BBC website has changed the episode count to 44 episodes. Soaper1234 - talk 18:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Too Old for this Shift" is in fact just one episode. The length of it does not mean it is two episodes. Each episode is 50 minutes long so if that episode was two episodes, the overall length of the episode would be 100 minutes, when in fact the episode was only 80 minutes long. Also, the BBC website for Casualty is the most reliable source to confirm that it was in fact just one episode.[4] You can see in this source that "Too Old for this Shift" is episode 1, followed by "Fall on Me" which is episode 2 and so on...Pug05 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what we are discussing here. A polite reminder not to change a topic title and not to adjust an article without reaching a consensus on the talk page. I would be happy to have TOFTS as solely episode one and to continue the trend, although it is something that needs to be discussed first. Also, to let you know, the special episode was actually 99 minutes long (the length of two episodes). Soaper1234 - talk 18:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the episode doesn't determine how many episodes it is made up of. Multiple sources, including the BBC have said that a 'feature length special' will premiere Series 31. Feature length does not necessarily mean that it is two episodes edited together. To close this case, I'll tweet to the official Casualty twitter page asking about TOFTS.Pug05 (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pug05: Other users, such as ElectrodeandtheAnode and Kelvin 101, have the opinion that it should be classed as two episodes because from a production point of view, it has been classed as two episodes - most likely due to its length. We all know it is one feature-length episodes and nobody is denying this, although we are finding the best way of recording it, whether this be as one episode or two. Soaper1234 - talk 14:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that "One" is now being listed as "Episode 44 of 44", in terms of production, personally, I don't see TOFTS as two episodes, but one episode split up into two halves (i.e. 1a and 1b if you like). Also, the episode was not 80 minutes as Pug05 stated, it was more or less 100 minutes (actually 1 hour, 39 minutes), so pretty much exactly the same length as two full episodes. --86.25.131.8 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add – Erika Hossington has also said Series 31 consisted of 45 episodes [on Twitter]. At the end of the day, it may say online that there are 44 episodes, however behind-the-scenes, cast and crew state that the thirty-first series consists of 45 episodes. Also, "Too Old for This Shift" was originally two separate scripts. The thirtieth anniversary was originally going to be a two-parter, until it was made feature-length. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am reopening this discussion following a series of edits by Lego Whovian and DeclanSimons. The conclusion of this discussion was that there was 45 episodes, with the opening episode considered as one. While I appreciate your bold changes, I believe they should be talked about first. Soaper1234 - talk 19:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected what looked to me like an obvious mistake; episode no. 1006 was completely missing from the episode list, yet there was no skip in the no.s in series 31. Series 31, Episode 1 was listed as no. 1005, while Series 31, Episode 2 was listed as 1007. If series 31 is considered by wikipedia to have 45 episodes then it should have said so, instead of listing 44 while skipping out a number (For example Too Old for this Shift should have been listed as episode no.s 1005<hr />1006; 1<hr />2. I would do this myself but it looks like I may need permission, otherwise my edits may be reverted. Lego Whovian (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just spotted this now. The numbering was changed in this edit following the Good Article review. I've added a note to explain that in the official long-term numbering, episode 1-2 is episode 1005-1006, but in terms of the series, it is episode one. Soaper1234 - talk 18:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

[edit]

@Soaper1234 and JuneGloom07: I would like to nominate this article for Good Article status rather soon, as I believe it is pretty much there. What do you two think? ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, and if you think it's ready, I say nominate it. - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree - all looks to me. Soaper1234 - talk 07:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a second look through the summaries. The beginning of episode 43 doesn't make sense: "Mickey phones him from an abandoned shed after coming off a motorbike." Who is him? Soaper1234 - talk 07:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I completely forgot to amend that sentence after I had rearranged it. All corrected now. I will give one final check over and then nominate it ASAP. Thank you both for the quick replies. Fingers crossed it does well. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Casualty (series 31)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies this review has been so long coming about. As it's been over half a year since it's nomination, I'll help out, and do this one. If anyone fancies helping out with World Snooker Championship 2018, I'd appreciate it!


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Final Note - I think I have watched maybe a couple episodes of Casualty in my life, so I barely an expert. However, articles on Wikipedia should be able to make sense to most people reading them, regardless of how well attuned they are to the subject. So, If I ask any questions, let me know what I'm missing!

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - No problems here. Other previous season articles pass GA.  Done
  • It contains copyright infringements - Basic CopyVio check brings in a few issues, namely the high levels on the Wikia link, and BBC/iMDB pages. These seem to be false positives, as I can't see much copywrite infringement, but I will later check images. Done
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - No banners present. Done
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Not a great deal of updates at all this year, so clearly no warring  Done
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

Cast

[edit]
Overview
[edit]

On 16 March 2017, it was announced that Roy Ellisson (John Killoran) and Denise Ellisson (Lucy Benjamin) would be reintroduced in April, alongside their sons Scott Ellisson (Will Austin) and Mickey Ellisson (Mitch Hewer). Hewer said, "I'm very excited for people to meet Mickey and for them to feel the difficulties that he endures in his life". Harper commented, "We met Mickey's parents in 2015, but don't judge a book by its cover. Mickey isn't necessarily cut from the same cloth in his dealings with the Casualty regulars and there will be absolutely explosive consequences."

  • as the actual cast list is only a list, it's hard to critique, but what exactly sets an actor as being a "guest character", rather than an extra? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funnily enough, we have recently discussed this at the talk page of Casualty (series 33). Guest characters tend to be separated into a few categories:
      • Crossover characters (characters who appear from Holby City such as Mo Effanga, Ric Griffin, Jac Naylor).
      • Past characters who guest star (including the 9 cast members who made guest appearances/cameos in the special episode, such as Lenny Lyons, Josh Griffiths, Tess Bateman, as well as other past characters like Ben "Lofty" Chiltern and Ryan Johnson)
      • Characters who appear multiple times in the series (these characters commonly serve a key purpose in the stories, such as Roy Ellisson, Jackie Munroe and Archie Grayling)
    • So the above are guest characters, whereas extras will often be the one-off appearances ("patient of the week" characters) and those who float around in the background. I hope that made sense and thank you for asking the question! - Soaper1234 - talk 00:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

Notes & References

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Article is well written.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Article is well sourced for an article on a season.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers a lot of information for this particular season, without going into others.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Some NPOV issues have since been resolved.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article has been on the GA shelf for a year, and hasn't been vandalised once.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Article only uses Wiki Commons images, so no issues.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • I am placing this review on hold, for the above to be seen through and discussed ElectrodeandtheAnode. It's a quality article, and I'm a nit-picker, but there are a few things here that would stop me from passing through a WP:GA. Please let me know if you need anything better explained, or if I'm being a bit silly with any of the points above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I have addressed all the issues above (either with action in the article or a response). Thank you ever so much for doing the review Lee Vilenski. It's great to see it once step closer to a review. Soaper1234 - talk 21:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your time. I'll leave this open for a couple days so the original nominator can feedback with this one (would be a bit unfair as this GA has been open for some time to close it before then).
I will give it another full read after this, and give it a review and say yey or nay. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski and Soaper1234: My sincerest apologies Soaper1234 that I have not contributed to the improvements which were requested by the reviewer. As you know, I am usually very prompt in responding to queries in GA nominations as I am incredibly passionate about getting GA status articles. I am truly gutted that time was not on my side to help improve the article, but I cannot thank you enough for the time you have invested in this article and the changes you have made to improve it. I have read over it once more and I am satisfied with the feedback and improvements that have been made. Also a HUGE thank you Lee Vilenski for reviewing this article. I am happy for you to read over it again, if there are any more queries, please let us know! ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ElectrodeandtheAnode: Don't be daft! I've quite enjoyed being able to get stuck into a project like this again. If anything, I'm sorry I ploughed through it all without letting you have a chance to get involved. As long as you're happy with the amendments I've made then I'd be happy with this review. Soaper1234 - talk 11:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casualty_series_31&oldid=1216217030"