Talk:Bonekickers

Reception

The first episode reception has been condensed somewhat. As it stood, the article was dominated by quotations, much of which would likely be subject to copyright. --Salvador Barley (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Squatting professor

There is a dispute over the inclusion of the following quote from The Independent:

"Professor Magwilde's approach to archaeology is unconventional. She likes to squat at the edge of the trench and mutter urgently, "Come on! Give up your secrets!"

My feeling is that it's not relevant to the reader's appreciation of the reviewer's opinion of the show and, therefore, inclusion is contra to the idea that we should keep non-free content to a minimum. However, if someone can come up with a good rationale for including this, I'm all ears.

I have invited the IP editor who added it to comment here. --Salvador Barley (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the quote I have inserted; as opposed to the other brief summaries in the review section the quote refers directly to an event in the show, and therefore provides a succinct example of the type of absurdity that the other review quotes only hint at. 129.67.137.64 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.137.64 (talk)

Third opinion

Anybody else have an opinion on this? --Salvador Barley (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The two episodes so far have had a political component, and a variable scattering of humour.

There could be a comment on the factual basis of the stories - though the stories are quite clearly fantasies. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If the series encourages people to investigate "the more obscure areas of history" then it is "A Good Thing" (in the 1066 and All That sense). Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

100

"A scene in the first episode which depicted a Muslim's beheading by an extremist Christian drew 100 complaints"

So, exactly 100? Or "hundreds of"? And isn't it a "christian extremist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.34 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The character summaries/analysis are a good representation of the television show. The way they are divided is clear and simple. The only problem is the citing, which is not apparent.

Mabourque (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bonekickers. 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/20080920073210/http://www.bath.ac.uk:80/archaeology/ to http://www.bath.ac.uk/archaeology/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)