Talk:Arachnids in the UK

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arachnids in the UK article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal 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 Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : 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 Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Arachnids in the UK is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Green Death Parallels

I have made a note in this article about the Parallels of this episode to the 1973 Doctor Who serial “The Green Death” as I believe it’s noteworty to this article. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:ACAA:F058:68CF:6737 (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Editors aren't supposed to make that call. You would need to cite a reliable source saying that it's noteworthy. DonQuixote (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Radio Times article discusses "The Green Death", as well as making reference to "Planet of the Spiders" which also featured a giant spider. Perhaps it's worth mentioning these in a see also section, or mentioning them in Critical reception. This is Paul (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All that article does is say 'it's like those two 70s episodes and I really like that.' It calls this a mashup but there's no indication that Chibnall is referencing anything deliberately, it's entirely the reviewer's inference. If it were saying, reliably, that Chibnall was inspired by those episodes, there'd be a reason to mention them in production. As it is, it's a reason why the reviewer liked it, not worthy of bringing up in critical reception.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary discussion of title (let's get this over with)

So, when there's a reliable source indicating the title is a pun on Anarchy in the UK (and there will be), I'm guessing it's only worth mentioning in production, and sourced to a writer or Chibnall. Right?ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single Subsections

I'm not going to be pedantic about this, but in academia it's recommended that sections with single subsections should be avoided (see [1]). Also, having Production§Casting is redundant when there's nothing else being discussed. Either Production by itself or Casting by itself is adequate. But apart from pointing this out, as I've said, I'm not going to be pedantic about it. DonQuixote (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, none of those are a Wikipedia essay, guideline or policy and thus they do not relate here. -- Alex^TW 05:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is trying to be a general encyclopaedia. So there's that. DonQuixote (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the last sentence of my revert, I had realised there was a discussion here, so sorry. I still think having a single subsection in a section with nothing else is entirely pointless as Don has said, and just because there isn't a guideline that mentions this doesn't automatically mean this is a good idea. Ted Edwards 17:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally positive" reviews

Might I go ahead and say, it's not every single review that was positive. Lots of people hate this episode. Vincinel (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the reliable sources in this article indicate "generally positive". If you can find a source that says otherwise, feel free to do so. DonQuixote (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]