Talk:List of Heartbeat cast members

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal List of Heartbeat cast members 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.

Untitled[edit]

Just thining that in the part w/ police people, Younger should be there....

He is. Matt 00:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Is Bellamy an original character?

Should Inspector Murchinson be included somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.85.189 (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing dispute: other opinions sought[edit]

There is a difference of opinion between myself and user UpDown about the section on Tom Nicholson. I think it should be in the past tense; he/she thinks it should be in the present. If you look throughout this article, you will see that descriptions of old storylines and departed characters are in the past tense, which I believe is sensible. Why should this one section be an exception? UpDown cites WP:TENSE which says that "generally you should write about fiction using the present tense". I agree with this in the case of films, plays, books and suchlike, but I suspect that situations such as we have in this article were not considered when that text was written. I have proposed a change at Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles. In the meantime, any third opinions on the particular issue in this article will be most welcome. At the moment it is just one person's view against another, and we have reached stalemate. Outside views are needed. Matt 15:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

I have reverted. WP:TENSE is quite clear. The other sections on the page need changing. Past tense should be used when something has happended and cant happen again. TV show storylines can happen again and again and again. See he Pauline Fowler article, a departed soap opera character. --UpDown 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TENSE is not actually "quite clear". It says "generally you should write about fiction using the present tense" (my italics), and generally I agree. But, "generally" admits exceptions, and, as I have illustrated in my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles, there are plenty of examples of these exceptions in other Wikipedia articles. In any case, whatever WP:TENSE says it is open to challenge. To avoid further edit-warring I will leave your edit in place for the time being, but I need to see some consensus on this before I accept it permanently. While other opinions are being sought I would ask you to leave the rest of the article as it is. After that I propose that we both abide with the consensus view. Matt 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

As I have said before, there is already a widespread, generally accepeted consensus for eternal present. Look at the talk page of Pauline Fowler, where the issue has been discussed and present tense decided on (for FA process). Episodes of Heartbeat are often repeated on ITV4 and other channels, meaning that past tense is even more undefendable. The events happen again and again whenever they are watched. Past tense is not logical. --UpDown 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a fine example of how the guideline goes badly wrong when you try to apply it to soap operas and the like. It reads most peculiarly -- lurching from one tense to another and giving the distinct impression of editors struggling to cope with an unnatural style. The editor who implemented the last round of changes describes the use of the present tense as "non-intuitive", and even the main proponent says that there are points where the present tense would "read oddly". I'm guessing that's why scattered throughout the article there are still sentences in the past tense that should allegedly be in the present: the use of the past tense is so natural that either no-one noticed, or if they did, couldn't bring themselves to change it. It's noticeable, too, how many of the quotes from people not constrained by Wikipedia's alleged guideline describe the character's actions in the past tense.

Anyway, that discussion seems to mostly revolve around trying to satisfy just one person's views. Let's see what comes out of the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing better articles. I'm not sure how much traffic that page gets, so if no comments are forthcoming I may try to flag it up somewhere more visible. Or, if you know where best to do that and you feel so inclined then please go ahead. Matt 23:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

All of that is your opinion, guidelines suggest eternal present. The different tenses on Pauline Fowler's article are where fictional events and real-world information are together. I think that the two should be seperated, but on Pauline's article it is merged. If it passes FA then we can take that as a sign that eternal present is accept by Wikipedia.--UpDown 11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Heartbeat characters. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070209214614/http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk:80/ViewArticle2.aspx? to http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]