Jump to content

Talk:Primeval (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Episode one

Shouldn't it really read more like a plot outline than a list of things that happened? Maybe it should have it's own article, or something?

Also, do the episodes have actual titles?Ayries 11:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think the episodes have actual titles, and I have tried to make the episode outline sound less disjointed. Nubula 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't think they did, I figured it was worth it to ask. The summary seems good now, the tenses need ironing out but it's much better. Thanks. =) Ayries 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, episode synopses should just give a rough outline of scenes - this is way too long. Jihg 20:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

Episode synopses really need to go on individual episode pages, or this article is really going to get out of hand! Thought I'd ask before moving it though... Do we need episode pages? What would we call them, without episode titles? Jihg 20:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, most shows seem to have episode pages. But if you want to keep the page count down for the time being perhaps we could have a page like List of Torchwood episodes... but that don't link any episode articles (yet) and keep the synopsises within one page for the time being. --GracieLizzie 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't see your comment on this below. I think an episode list article is a good idea. And it turns out there's a policy on TV episodes, plus a couple of wikiprojects: episode lists and episode articles. Jihg 23:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of episode one-specific stuff here, I'm sure that we'll need articles for each episode, but I can't find a precedant for doing this for episodes without titles. How about Primeval Episode One? Jihg 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved all the episode one stuff to a new article. I'm pretty sure the naming of the page is correct. After all, it's called "Episode One", and then the disambiguation in the brackets is the correct way of naming a page? -Mikay 12:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Almost, (Primeval) is better than (Primeval episode) really. --GracieLizzie 23:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Anomaly

Should what we learn about the Anomaly and Helen Cutter be placed in their own section? Nubula 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I did this last night, it is at: time anomaly. Actually I think this page should focus on production, reception, and have an overview section. I think the episodes could have their own article, or an article each even. --GracieLizzie 14:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realise the link was for the anomalies in this show and not fictional time anomalies in general. As for whether or not the episodes should get their own page depends on how many series are planned. At the moment I think they could stay where they as their are only six, but if season two materialises or this page becomes too long due to the trivia and errors section, I'll go along with moving them to their own page. Nubula 14:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, personally I think even a six episodes the page may be pushing it on the length side of things. --GracieLizzie 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Latin plurals

Can we please be a bit consistent about the plurals of species names? The plural of "Coelurosauravus" is not "Coelurosauravuses" but "Coelurosauravi", similarly "Scutosaurus" -- > "Scutosauri". -- Arwel (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Species names have no plural form they only exist as singular entities. So the correct forms are Coelurosauravus and Scutosaurus whether talking about one or hundreds.--NeilEvans 14:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Creatures seen

Do you think we should include the prehistoric Fish, Sarcopterygii and Helen's Ammonite in the animals seen in epsiode one and the List of creatures in the Primeval series sections? Nubula 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

trivia

Can't see the point of anyone accusing the show of being a Dr Who "clone", ie a virtually identical copy when the formats are so different. The only real link is that they are sf fantasy aimed at a family audience. So they both deal with time travel? So do Stargate, Time Tunnel and a host of other shows. As for Torchwood, that's a late night "adult" show, don't see the connection, except its a Dr Who spin off. You could say Torchwood was influenced by the X files and Special Unit 2 (which in turn was inspired by Men in Black etc etc). Dr Who has plenty of its own coverage, can we keep it out of here unless really relevant? Greenpeas 13:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Primeval widely seen as ITVs "answer" to Doctor Who, so I think it's worth mentioning. As for Torchwood, it has been mentioned online but not in the press so feel free to remove it at least until it can be verified and is less ORish. --GracieLizzie 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, think I'll leave as is for the time being and hope it doesn't get expanded.!Greenpeas 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Title image

Image:Primeval - intro.jpg has the title on a plain black background and isn't very representative of the opening credits. I've changed it to Image:PrimevalTitle.jpg, which is slighly less dull. Jihg 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (Note: images have been updated since this comment was made)

We don't go by what's more prettier, my version is of the final second (without the orange bits flaring around), your is not. You also need to learn to use the upload a new version feature (bottom of image pages), no reason why the image needs to be renamed. :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why is the final second that important? Can you be more explicit about your criteria here? Surely pretty is a good thing? Jihg 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the final second? Every other show I've seen uses the final second with text stating the shows name (Doctor Who, Torchwood are both the final second of the intro where it's most clear), to be clear my objection isn't due to being pretty it's because you uploaded a new image in a new title over the present one, which orphans the original image and thus will end up giving me a red mark in my upload log.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - I should have replaced the original. We can correct my mistake by deleting the one we don't use. As for which one: the logo seem just as clear in both, and a few orange flary bits make it a little more interesting. Can we agree to use it? To be picky, the Doctor Who image is from about 10 seconds before the end of The Runaway Bride credits. Jihg 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been resolved by an update to Image:Primeval - intro.jpg. Image:PrimevalTitle.jpg has been deleted. Jihg 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelms???

Is it me or can I seem to hear a Wilhelm scream in every episode? In Episode one, there was a person hit by the Gorgonopissd; in number 2 it was another person attacked by the Arthropleura; and episode three it was the person in the basement who got attacked by the Mosasaur. Every time, it seemed they used the exact same scream each time. Who thinks so? --F@$fd$@fd$@f w0z eya 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too! It was great, I'm watching out for them now.

Character Article(s)?

Does anyone think it would be worth it to add an article on the characters? Maybe not one per character, but a page with a section for each of them? We know a reasonable amount about each and their roles now, and there isn't much in the article, really. Ayries 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in support of an article each for the main characters - Nick, Abby, Connor, Stephen, Claudia, Helen and... Ben Millers character (who's name I can't remember); as well as a page like List of Torchwood minor characters for the reoccurring minor characters like Tom, Duncan, and SAS Tom and maybe for important one episode characters. So perhaps yes to Ben the boy from episode one, but no to people like the lady with the python in her loo. --GracieLizzie 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with User:GracieLizzie. Even more so now Primeval has been renewed for a second series. Matthew 13:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good idea. Jihg 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started the Nick Cutter article, and made a Primeval characters category. Could you guys add more info to the Cutter article and make more for the main characters? (I'd say everyone who's name appears in the opening credits should have an individual article, important others can go in a List of Primeval minor characters article). The infobox template I used is here. Also once this is done, we can then maybe we should make a navigation template for Primeval? --GracieLizzie 18:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Music

Is it worth mentioning the music that's been included in the show, it seems to quite cleverly fit into the scenes and is very "now" as far as the chosen tracks go. --62.136.223.9 13:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

In episode 4, Helen remarks that she saw a Utahraptor during the Jurrasic, but Utahraptors lived in the Cretaceous. Should this be included in the article? Chavmusiksux 16:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It should go on the Episode Four (Primeval) article, not this one. --GracieLizzie 16:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there was an anomaly from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous and a Utahraptor passed through it.--NeilEvans 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think of that, but I've just added a bit to the episode 4 article Chavmusiksux 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'Palaeontological inaccuracies' section should really be split across individual episode articles - this isn't the right place to detail every error in the entire series. Maybe have a paragraph about the general accuracy of the series, with a couple of significant examples? Jihg 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have an inaccuracies section at all? Primeval is science fiction. Who is to say that the universe Primeval is set in is ours? Therefore the eras (and creatures) within the Primeval universe may be completely different to ours. This section sounds like an opinion piece by a dinosaur fan who doesn't like the TV series (especially the line "This seems to suggest that as far as the show is concerned any large prehistoric reptile is a "dinosaur"").Z3n 14:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
While the Primeval universe is clearly alternate rather than real world, the buildings being in diffrent locations is a dead givaway as well as the innacuraces surounding the fauna, the section needs to stay because the errors are true, although split it across individual episode articles as suggested by Jihg. However you are correct when you said that statments like "This seems to suggest that as far as the show is concerned any large prehistoric reptile is a "dinosaur" need to be removed. Nubula 12:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The section reads much now that the opinion statement has been removed. Thank-you! I also agree that splitting the inaccuracies across each individual episode is a good idea.Z3n 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Locations

Does anyone know the name of the football stadium where the dodos came through in episode 4? Also, what team plays there? Is it in London? Finite Matthaus 17:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a football fan but I've been told by someone who is that it was Chelsea's home ground. --Shearluck 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It was filmed at Millwall's New Den stadium. See episode 4's talk page. Jihg 17:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I’ve been thinking. How much support would I get from you all if I where to suggest we start our own Primeval Wikia (though we’ll have to come up with a cooler sounding name)

The reason I ask is because I want to expand the current articles and add several new ones, and this is before the second series emerges, and I just know that I’ll be frustrated and opposed by the requirements of notability required for an article here, and the ensuing debates over deletion of its content. I also cite the fact that such wrangles occurred on the Prehistoric Park page and some even thought a speedy deletion for the Helen Cutter article was in order.

Clearly this is not the place for an in-depth, admittedly in-universe, analysis of this program (which is unavoidable if we’re truly encyclopaedic). Most of the current articles can be copied directly from Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License or we can just re-create our own from scratch. Star wars and Star Trek have solved this problem by having their own Wikia, and even little known shows like the Gargoyles (TV series) and the Muppets have one, so why can’t we? What say you? Nubula 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You should consider setting up a Wikia :). Matthew 14:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am. I just want to know what support I'll have for such an action. No point if I'm the only one interested. Nubula 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that your the only one to reply positivly since posted that back in May, support is clearly lacking, so I've given up on the whole idea. Maybe i'll try to drumb up more support come series 2. Nubula 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor Grievence with a line from the article

"It has been argued that Primeval is the more realistic of the two, since very few humans ever have a rational reason to visit Cardiff (of all places), and even fewer extraterrestrials."

This is a little too jokey. Also, it displays quite an ignorance about Torchwood, as aliens often do not 'choose' to visit Cardiff, it is the time rift that spews 'debris' into the city.

Overall, it's a jokey sentence that doesn't into what should be an article with a relatively serious tone. As amusing as I find it, it's a little inappropriate.

--Ktan 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

PRIMEVALThis user knows that some force, out there, ripped the boundaries of space and time to shreds.

Here is a userbox I have created. Add it to your page by adding {{User:Cuddly Panda/Userboxes/Primeval}}

Futuristic Predator

This page Futuristic Predator should be deleted. Most of it is fan fiction, their is a better version on the Primeval creatures page and this creature has no claim on notibility. Not to mention the conflict of interest. I say delete it. Who's with me.Nubula 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! 09:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
CLEANUP IS POINTLESS. It does not deserve its own page and should and will be deleted. Nubula 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the Prod tag. The list of primeval creatures page does not have precident over a new page- it could be said to be a split. Someone'll have to explain the conflict of intrest thing to me- the article looks NPOV to me. Given that the creature is apparently set to return in the second series, it has some claim to notability. Feel free to AfD it, however. --OZOO (What?) 16:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly their is no reason to split because it is of exceptible length on the creatures page and its own page tells us nothing we don't already say on the creatures page so its just a glorified duplicate. Also the fact that its making a repeat apperance in the same media it was first released in, the details of which we know nothing about by the way so speculation on that front is pointless (if you could prove its going to be of major importance and the detials will take up half a page rather than it returning as the random monster of the week then I might reconsider, but you can't so I won't), does not make it noteworthy, only that the current page should be extended. And the conflict of interest comes from the fact that the creator claims to be the company that created this creature in the first place.Nubula 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tech Page

Should their be a page on the technology seen in the series? I'm working on such a page but now I'm making slow progress due to my lack of knowlage on the subject and now not sure if its realy noteworthy. Thoughts and ideas on this? Nubula 12:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take the lack of reply to be a no. Can't say I'm dissapointed as I was making limited headway anyway. Nubula 15:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll help. I'll try not to be a 'troll'. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! | join the Zoo Tycoon taskforce! 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Primeval cast.jpg

Image:Primeval cast.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Step into the past future and anything in between

This is the show like Doctor Who but different. If you go down to the ARC today your sure of a big surprise, for every anoamly that there ever was the info is stored in files, there are the creauture sightings and profiles on the team.

Anoamlies gateways between times, to worlds we can bearly imagine. You could go to any era, even the future, that's were some animals have come from before like the future predator and the Mer. Hengatie (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly my site www.itvprimeval.com / www.stargoss.co.uk/itvprimeval has been removed from the links and replaced with faked sites that have copied the material from my site.

Our site is the FIRST and biggest fan site, and we have a close working relationship with Impossible Pictures as well as links in the cast and crew.

The episode transcripts appeared on our site FIRST and exclusively, any other transcripts out there have been copied from our site.

Ihave spoken to the case and crew and all have told me that our site is their first port of call for new info on the show, even before the official site.

We also run the MySpace and Facebook groups for the show which include the PR people from ITV.

So can we please keep an eye on people removing the link, as it is of worthwhile for any fan of the show, in fact much of the Wiki article on primeval has come from my site.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.111.32 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly my site www.itvprimeval.com / www.stargoss.co.uk/itvprimeval has been removed from the links and replaced with faked sites that have copied the material from my site.
Prove they stole the material from your site. Even if you could do that, given that you copied most of the creature bios from wikipedia anyway, I'd say your just the pot calling the kettle black.
The episode transcripts appeared on our site FIRST and exclusively, any other transcripts out there have been copied from our site.
Again prove it was stolen! because anyone with a Primeval DVD can create their own transcripts. Also unless your Tim Haines, you can't claim exclusive priviliges on copywrited material you don't own.
I have spoken to the case and crew and all have told me that our site is their first port of call for new info on the show, even before the official site. We have a close working relationship with Impossible Pictures as well as links in the cast and crew.
By all means prove it. Not that it matters because its an appeal to Authority Fallacy anyway.
Much of the Wiki article on primeval has come from my site.
That is an outright lie and you know it. Nubula 10:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Use the history link on wikipedia. Someone came on here, removed my link which mentioned the transcripts and put their own site. You have the proof of this on your own history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.111.32 (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I know your site was removed! because the majority of us here think that its badly designed, out of date and ultimalty self-refrencing. The only thing it EVER had to offer was the transcripts which can now be found elsewhere without having to deal with all your extra-baggage. Nubula 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How can it be out of date when we have news that appears before wikipedia?

As for badly designed, well we out performed the ITV site for visitors, we offer more than any other Primeval site in the world, have original transcripts that are easy to read and well laid out, we have many original fan fictions, and our forum is the biggest primeval forum in the world.

I think Wikipedia could learn a lot from our site when it comes to Primeval and ease of use.

Jealousy is such a sad thing, especially when you compare the size of Wikipedia to my site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.111.32 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yadda Yadda Yadda. Poor baby, must be so bad to know we have more here on wikipedia than you have on your little site which is mostly cut and pasted from here. I could tear your lies, Ad-Hominem, Circular Logic, Strawman and Red Herring Fallacys to shreads by why bother as you'll ignore it, just as you've ignored my first set of challenges. So just run along to your imagenary friends at Impossible Pictures for help why don't you. Nubula 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you are such a noob. At least i have my own sites, instead of trying to live off the glory of someone elses site. For the record i run the UK's largest sceptical website in BadPsychics.com Your pseudointellectual comments are wasted, as for your latin Ad-Hominems, they make me chuckle to be honest. Latin is a dead language, use Greek instead much more intelligent sounding when you are trying to be a big boy, and sound smart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.111.32 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yadda Yadda Yadda. Nothing you've just said is relavent. Though you clearly don't know what an Ad-Hominem fallacy is as you've just commited it again. ANSWER MY CHALLENGES IF YOU CAN. Nubula 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the transcripts: It is my livejournal blog that the wikipedia primeval page links to for the transcripts. I have NOT nicked these from the itvprimeval.com site. If you look at the dates when they went up, you will find that the transcripts went up on my livejournal page either before, or at the same time, as they went up on the other site. The reason that they are exactly the same, is that I am the forum user that posted the transcripts on the itvprimeval.com forum in the first place. I gave my permission for them to be on the site, but also posted them to my own blog, so that I could have my own online copy that I could link to without any problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partofthequeue2 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you're being stupid. As SAID BEFORE you can just tape the episodes and write the scripts down afterwards. Easy as ABC. You seem to be the only person who actually gives a damn about your site. You get that? Or, am I being, as they said in Rome, AD HOMINEM? (Jonas Arkwing (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Articles for deletion

All interested users please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primeval: Anomaly Activity Book for a discussion regarding five tie-in books on the subject of Primeval. Brad (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to divide up the external links into separate sections, especially since there are so few of them. Furthermore, the "douglashenshaw.com" so-called "reference site" is just a non-official fansite (see this disclaimer on the site) which contains what could arguably described as copyrighted material without permission from the producers. If the site is used as a reference, it should be more than sufficient for it to appear in the references section where applicable. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "douglashenshaw.com" so-called "reference site" is just a non-official fansite.
So what? It had more reference data than any other site.
Contains what could arguably described as copyrighted material without permission from the producers
Such as? Nubula (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This is why I removed it. The Henshall Primeval interview section alone has copied articles from TV& Satellite Week (12th -18th January), Starburst (issue 347), TVZone (Issue 212) etc without any assertion that permission was granted by copyright owners. --English as tuppence 14:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The Henshall Primeval interview section alone has copied articles from TV& Satellite Week (12th -18th January), Starburst (issue 347), TVZone (Issue 212) etc without any assertion that permission was granted by copyright owners.
And the evidence that the acticles are under copyright exists where? Nubula (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with English as tuppence. These scans are a copyright violation, if you need another example. Use as a regular reference if needed, but do not list it in the external links section. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, the evidence that the acticles are under copyright exists where? Nubula (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In any issue of said magazines, you will find relevant copyright assertions. Professional publications can't easily function if they release material under a free license. --English as tuppence 14:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Provide the relevent copyright assertions in this case. Nubula (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The burden of proof falls upon the website itself, just as it does on Wikipedia when uploading images, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Your the one claiming copyright violations so The burden of proof is on you. Nubula (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent changes that re-added the fansite. Editing of the external link section should be avoided until the conflict above is resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'll bet good money that neither of you intend to make another comment on this subject ever again. Thus never ending the conflict and removing the link permenantly. Nubula (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to this on User talk:Nubula -- Scjessey (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So much talk, yet little debate on the subject at hand. I guess I was right on that account after all. Nubula (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing to debate. The link is inappropriate because it does not conform to WP:EXT for copyright reasons, and because links to that particular site already appear in the references section (which is more than sufficient). Also inappropriate is the division of the external links section when so few links exist. It doesn't matter how many times you conduct reversions, the facts will remain the same. All you are doing is opening yourself up to the possibility of a longer temporary ban with your continued violation of WP:3RR. Since you refuse to listen to reason or polite warnings, I would rather this were handled by an experienced Wikipedia administrator than participate in a silly edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Your right, there is nothing to debate because your in the wrong. Firstly you have yet to prove that the material is under cropyright to begin with. Secondly, even if you do prove it the point is moot as the site is not in violation of ANY British or american copyright laws despite your delusions to the contrary and nothing you, or your Wikipedia administrator can say or do will change that. Nubula (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you not see the scans of copyrighted publications then? Reproducing those images without permission is a violation of basic copyright law, and denial (or some form of cognitive dissonance) is not a valid defence. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
First, prove that the material in question is indeed under copyright and was not released into the public domain on publication, you keep saying it's owned by someone, but I want proof of that claim so PROVIDE IT NOW. Not that it matters because ITS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANY BRITISH COPYRIGHT LAW. You are apparently unaware (or simply to stupid to know) of the "fair use" provisions of British and American copyright law which states that fair use permits "limited reproduction in relation to the copying's purpose" for such purposes as "criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research". The reason for the scans is clearly news reporting so no problems there. Since they name, and thus give credit to, the original authors and the name of the original source is clearly provided, rather than trying to pass the material off as their own, it's not plagiarism. Since their not misquoting it, it's not slander. Since their not using it to generate profit, there is no claim on income. In other words, you have no case whatsoever, and an army of the best lawyers in the world (or your denials to the contrary) wouldn't change that. Unauthorized excerption for the purpose of discussion has been protected by law since before either of us were born simpleton. Nubula (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You are so right. I shall bow to your superior knowledge and recuse myself from this infantile discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the movies mate, holding your head high when you stride from the room has no bearing on the quality of the arguments. Nubula (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Abc223344 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As regard to the Douglas Henshall site [1], my feelings are this. You both have valid arguments regarding the site in external links. It's a shame to have conflicts, but I would like to keep the site at wikipedia as a useful referance site, because I use it for referance to add to Primeval on here. Many of us here have used the site to find articles and news. They do usually link back to the original article if it is online.

They also have some original articles themselves [2],[3] and [4] and approval from the actor himself [5] and [6], though I have also seen the disclaimer and believe he has nothing to do with it. Please keep it on here, not because I approve of one of you against another, but because I find it useful. —Preceding . Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by Abc223344 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

douglashenshall.com

Just to clarify: This site should not be included in the "external links" section of the article because it violates WP:EXT for several reasons, not least of which is blatant copyright theft. For example, this article has been copied wholesale from here without any form of attribution, which is why I was forced to change a reference to it within the body of the article. Where possible (excepting original material), any references to this site should be replaced with alternatives where copyright issues are not in question. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to include this site in the external links section when it already crops up within normal references. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant copyright theft
THEN PLEASE PROVE IT. I gave you a list of what constitiutes copyright infringment in the UK and you ignore it. ANSWER IT OR SHUT UP.
without any form of attribution
LIAR.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to include this site in the external links section when it already crops up within normal references
Red herring moron. Oh and by the way what happend to you recusing yourself from this infantile discussion? Guess you must be more bitter and obsessed about this than I thought. Nubula (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Guys, this is a pretty clear-cut case. WP:EXT clearly says not to link to pages that contain blatant copyright infringement. There is no question that this website is engaging in extensive copyright infringement.

The assertion that these publications might have been "released into the public domain on publication" is just silly. I can promise you that the Telegraph, the Times, the Guardian, and the like do not release their publications into the public domain. Here are some examples of their legal disclaimers:

"Except as set out in the limited licence in section 4.2 above (or as required under any applicable law), the Content, Trade Marks and/or any other part of the Site may not be used, reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold, resold, accessed, modified, or otherwise exploited, in full or in part, for any purpose without our prior written consent. In particular, you are not permitted to republish any part of the Site (including the Content) on another website, in any other medium (print, electronic or otherwise) or as part of any commercial service without our prior written permission." - The Telegraph
"You must not reproduce any part of Guardian Unlimited or the material or transmit it to or store it in any other website or disseminate any part of the material in any other form, unless we have indicated that you may do so." - Guardian Unlimited

Wholesale copying of information for redistribution is not covered under fair use rights. As Nubula pointed out above, fair use is only for "criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research". Clearly, this website is none of the above -- it is a fan sure, pure and simple. Such wholesale copying of articles and images for vanity purposes is a very common practice, but I assure you it is illegal.

Nubula, I'm sorry, but you're way off base here. This site is completely inappropriate for an external link. I would also like to request that you tone down your speech -- e-shouting, name-calling, and attacking other editors are all, to varying degrees, unwanted, unwelcome, and not allowed on Wikipedia.

Please let me know if anyone has any questions or would like to discuss. - Revolving Bugbear 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale copying of information for redistribution is not covered under fair use rights.
Nothing has been copyed Wholesale has it?
As Nubula pointed out above, fair use is only for "criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research". Clearly, this website is none of the above
THE REASON FOR THE ARTICLES IS NEWS REPORTING STUPID. Or did you miss the statment News on Primeval? so it is covered by fair use. Nubula (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyright infringement by any other name would be as illegal. It doesn't matter that they call it "news on primeval" -- it's clearly not news reporting, it's news copying. It's illegal, and we can't link to it.
I asked you to stop shouting and name-calling. Please do so. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - Revolving Bugbear 14:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

i know that there will be a 3 season but where did you got the information for the 13 episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.121.88 (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(TV series)

I beleive the main page should be moved to the page Primeval, rather than the (TV series) ending. Primeval is more popular than the other ones listed on the disambag page, and the disambag can be moved to Primeval (disambaguation). ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! |my chatroom] 03:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Yes I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.93.207 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: Near Duplicate pages???

What is going on here: there are two, almost duplicate, pages: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Primeval_(TV_series) and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Primeval ??

They now share much of the same text, but will rapidly diverge as people find and edit one or the other page

Is there anyone who can fix this quickly? 210.17.195.50 (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Replies copied from Wikipedia:Help desk#Near Duplicate pages:
There are no duplicate article. Primeval (TV series) is a redirect to the article Primeval. That means that you will be led to the article Primeval if you enter Primeval (TV series). AecisBrievenbus 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. By the way, the redirect was created by moving Primeval (TV series) to Primeval.[7] A move automatically leaves a redirect so links to the old name still work. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

References section

Can someone with more mediawiki experience than i please reformat the references section, as it appears to have gone haywire (think its something to do with one of the references in the episodes section.

Mike (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Series 3 Episode Guides

Can someone please tell me who is making up the Series Three episode guides? If they are true please can we have some references to the source or an explanation by the person/people who keep putting them on there. Surely there are others out there who would like to get rid of this Series 3 nonsense once and for all and wait until series 3 is actually due to be shown.

Abc 223344 (talk) 23:02,11 March 2008 (UTC)

Music

Every series 2 episode seems to have at least one song, so if anyone knows the titles of them I will make a list of music on another page. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! |my chatroom] 12:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Primeval_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1137097829"