Talk:Quatermass and the Pit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request for more references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 16:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request for introduction expansion

I'd like to put this on the main page, but could the intro be beefed up to include a description (sans spoilers) of what this show was actually about? →Raul654 16:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous references

This article really is a fine example of the worst habits of this site. Linking commonplace words like "newspaper" and "insect" -- not to articles that reflect upon some information on particular aspects relevant to the film but simply the common entries for those words. It makes a mockery of wikipedia. The article should be scrubbed of all that nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.163.130 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I am not entirely sure about using the DVD notes so extensively to source the article. It's been pointed out that IMDB is not that great of a source either. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is with the DVD notes - it's a professionally-published, detailed production history written by one of the most respected television historians around, Andrew Pixley. Is there a specific Wiki edict against such things? Angmering (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe WP:PRIMARY would apply to the sleevenotes. Wikipedia does not really do edicts, and we can use common sense to decide things on a case-by-case basis. However, on common sense grounds, we should not source anything subjective on the sleeve notes, and should be very careful about using them at all. I am not saying (and never did) that we cannot use them as a source. --John (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the sleeve notes could be considered a primary source, but I do think the article relies too heavily on them. Eric Corbett 19:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's probably true, although the article as it stood until recent weeks was the thick end of a decade old, so more sources may well have been published since then! Angmering (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite mentioned these sources at my talk recently. These are where I would start. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --John (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

We're already using a couple of those in the article now. Eric Corbett 21:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, sorry. Great work Eric. --John (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to see why WP:PRIMARY would apply to the viewing notes written, as Angmering says, by one of the most respected writers in the vintage TV field almost fifty years after the third BBC series was screened. "Sleeve notes" is also not a particularly apt description for an in-depth 48 page booklet. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, and I'm quite convinced that Pixley's booklet is indeed a reliable source we can rely on. Chapman & Cull's Projecting Tomorrow: Science Fiction and Popular Cinema cites Pixley on page 75, and refers to what they call his viewing notes rather than sleeve notes, which is perhaps how we also ought to refer to them. Eric Corbett 17:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Suez Crisis? native population?

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the Suez Crisis is mentioned in the Background section (I don't know enough about the Mau Mau Uprising to comment on that). My impression is that the serial's premise of an alien invasion was meant to be a subtle criticism of the racial problems facing Britain in the aftermath of WW II. What does mentioning the Suez Crisis have to do with that?

Also the section has this sentence: "During the same period immigration into Britain from the Indian subcontinent and the Caribbean was on the increase, causing some resentment among elements of the native population." (Emphasis mine). That wording is a rather obtuse, and here in America, considered politically incorrect. __209.179.54.133 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Luckily we don't all live in America. Eric Corbett 23:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can think of one person I'm glad who doesn't live in America. But say, did you understand the meaning of what I wrote - or do you need it rewritten with smaller words? Believe it or not, some people actually care about improving Wikipedia's articles. Do you happen to know anybody who's interested in improving this one? I'd ask if you are but I assume you're too busy practicing the fine art of making snide comments, __209.179.54.133 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think "native" in the context it is used is "politically incorrect." Who do you think "native" is referring to? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I was trying to think of some kind of comparative example. Suppose there was an article about the Japanese advance in the Pacific in 1942 and it contained something like this: "As the Japanese captured island after island, displaced refugees went to Australia, where they displaced the native population." Now wouldn't readers assume that the displaced people were the Aborigines and not the others who live there? To me "native population" just doesn't right and there must a better word. Maybe this is another difference between British vs. American usage, but I would use another word that didn't sound so odd.

Even so, could someone please explain what the Suez Crisis has to do with this? The article doesn't make a connection and it's not self evident to the reader. Why should it be included? __209.179.36.56 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quatermass and the Pit. 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/20061128012507/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article1948184.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article1948184.ece

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)