Talk:Survivors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] Last episode and other thoughts
I just finished watching the last episode of the third series. I didn't like the way that it was suggested that there were something like 150,000 poeple left in Scotland north of the Tay; out of an original population in that area of 1,500,000 (note that for the whole of Scotland the population in the 1970s was around 5,000,000). I think that 150,000 is quite a sustainable number of people. Norway, with a very similar demographic to Scotland would have likely have had a similar number of survivors. This 1:10 (or if you include the whole of Scotland 1:33) survivial rate just doesn't work in with the struggles for survivial suggested by episodes earlier in the series. For me I just didn't buy it. It had all gone too cosy. In England (and Wales ?) there were supposed to be something like 10,000 people out of perhaps 50,000,000 original inhabitants; meaning a survivial rate of 1:5000. I would call this a continuity problem. Similarly, regarding continuity, originally it was suggested that the chances of any survivor having a personal connection to any other survivors was extremely unlikely, and then later on we get various people connected by blood turning up, and even, with Edith Walter and her three sons, a whole family of survivors. Jooler 23:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- By coincidence, I just watched the last episode today. And I agree with you about the Scottish survival rate, but I don't think its notable enough to put in the article as a controversy, if that's what your suggesting. It may have been that the Laird was lying, in order to scare the "English" (the fact Denis Lill was playing a Welshman amusingly seemed to have escaped the writer!), or simply mistaken or course. We saw no evidence of the survival rate there, or, crucially, south of there, where you think they might have visited or been noticed! As to the survival of people connected by blood - it may be that they had some kind of inherited immunity? Even in the early days, there was a suggestion that Abby's son Peter survived; then there was John's mother later. Stephenb (Talk) 19:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links - fansites etc..
To the person who controls these pages... Who made you God and deleted Rich Cross's websites and why oh why do you keep insisting on adding the word 'fan' to my site when the other sites that were listed are fan sites too and weren't listed in that way? The h2g2 site is a fan site too by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.34.120 (talk • contribs)
- Well it wasn't God but User:Stephenb who made the changes. He is following the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links which says that "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate" - Well I think perhaps Stephen is misinterpreting this guide (and it is only a guide not a hard and fast rule). I think the text is referring to things like Star Trek or Doctor Who where there are thousands and thousands of fansites. There are not many fan-sites for Survivors and I don't think it inappropriate to have them here. Although I think only one link to the Mad Dog site is required. Jooler 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that doesn't reflect the fact that Rich's two sites have a totally diffrent and separate Survivors focus. Just because a site has the same opening URL doesn't mean it can't contain pages on entirely different subjects. I run my Secret Army site from the same URL as my Survivors one for example. I just don't understand this unnecessary officiousness in a wiki/'information for all' environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.34.135 (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia is not about providing lists of links to other sites. Stephenb (Talk) 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That's as maybe but I don't remember reading in the guidelines that editors should be power-tripping bureaucrats either. To not include the link to the Mad Dog site following our discussion, given that its content is directly relevant to this wiki, is simply fatuously stubborn and can serve no other purpose than for you to demonstrate that you have power. I prepare to bow down before you - all powerful one.
I quite agree that he should adhere to the civility policy, but I'm afraid the power has gone to his head. My eyes couldn't be drier thanks. AndyP
[edit] Wish there was a Science of
Does anyone know of the right forum for discussing the science of this series ? It is a thought provoking scenario - but I can't help thinking it unrealistic. PeterGrecian 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to add to the trivia section about people who went on to be famous, as it neglects to ention Roger Lloyd Pack who played 'Trigger' for all those years on only fools and horses. He appeared in the 'Lights of London' episodes.--Turkeyplucker 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Survivors.jpg
Image:Survivors.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Separate New Series Article
I just wanted to kick-start a discussion about when everyone thought would be an appropriate time to create a separate article for the up-coming new series. --Deadly∀ssassin 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- When there is significantly more information! Nobody can say exactly when that will be, but I'd expect (say) cast details, director/producer credits and so forth. Stephenb (Talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Cast and character details released by BBC [1]. Assuming the main characters of the original series remain central to the plot we have Patterson Joseph as Greg Preston, Julie Graham as Abby Grant and Freema Agyeman as Jenny Collins (was Jenny Richards in TOS) leading the cast. But I'd imagine that the Tom Price character as portrayed by Talfryn Thomas has undergone some "re-imagining" for Max Beesley. Jooler (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Intentional or accidental?
It concerned the plight of a group of people who had survived an accidentally released plague that had killed nearly the entire population of the planet.
I took the credit sequence as ambiguous, while a friend believed the release was deliberate. Is there any consensus on this or even indication in creator's statements or novelisations? MartinSFSA (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
