Talk:Spooks (TV series)

message: what's the source for spooks being MI:5 because spooks is offensive?  According to the 'spooks expert' on the official website, it was called that because Americans would associate spooks with the CIA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/spooksexpert_questions_1.shtml#2
see the answer to the question 'Why is the show also called "MI5 not 9 to 5"?'
::The programme guide to the series by Jim Sangster, who ironically is I believe also the man who does the Q&A section on the website. Angmering 13:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On a parallel, doesn't The Human Stain use the idea of 'spooks' being an offensive term? NickBarlow 01:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spook" as a racist slang word is very rare in America.  The term is used much more often for members of the intelligence community.  The name change is almost certainly a smart marketing move to make it clear to an American audience that the show is about British intelligence officers and not American ones. Mtiffany 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spook was once quite common as a derogatory term for black Americans, which older generations may remember.  It may also connotate ghosts or the horror genre (as in spooky).  It is not "much more common" as a label for spies or other intelligence personnel. -24.149.185.189 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spooks?

message: In the episode list at the bottom of the article the following is present: "The Seventh Division" ("A Very Corporate Coup") — Written by Ben Richards, directed by Sam Miller. Ben Richards redirects to The Running Man, which is not helpful - is there a standard way to resolve this sort of problem - perhaps by making a new link to Ben Richards (Writer) or something similar. Tompagenet 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Angmering 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ben Richards

message: Perhaps split off into separate episodes, using the Beeb page's episode guides, a la Rome (tv series)?, if we can get sufficient manpower!:-)  Just a suggestion. Neddyseagoon 00:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or at least create a single episode table (not the 2 we have now) for cast, writers, guests, date., plot etc a la Rome (tv series)#Season 1 (2005)
Yes... I was wondering why the "episodes" and "series" sections linked to from this article are so strangely fomatted - it's not normal to go to the "category" namespace for a list of episodes. Rather, check out List of South Park episodes for a WP:Featured List Example. Cheers, Witty lama 16:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes 

message: Can anyone provide the episode names for the just ended series?
Where did someone get the names from for the earlier series? I couldnt find anything on BBCs site or in the credits of the episodes. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.147.111 (talk • contribs) 
Does anybody know when A&E will air series 5 in the US? Frankly I think A&E has been terrible at marketing and supporting the show ever since series 2... Wl219 11:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 5 

message: I notice a recent edit was made that changed all references to the Spooks' department to "Section D" from "Section B". I've looked into this and it seems there is an inconsistency between the scripts. In episode 2.5 when the team are undergoing the EERIE exercise, Tom says: "What about the other floors? Immigration? Sections A and D?...", suggesting that they are not Section D and it must be Section B. Also various places on the BBC website suggest it's section B: here (3rd question) and here (1st question) and on a press release (last paragraph).
However, in episode 4.10 when Harry orders the lockdown, he says: "This is Harry Pearce, Section D".
Therefore, which do we adopt for the article? Also, does this inconsistency warrant mention in the article also or would that be original research? Jaws87 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section B or D?

message: I notice that there have been some significant edits to the Spooks article this week. The DVD section has definitely been improved.
The episode list has also been moved to a  different article. I do, however, feel that it would have been better if it had been discussed on this talk page before the new article was created. Personally, I feel the episode list would be better in the main article, or at least some of it, as having it in another article seems to fragment the main article. I realise the page was getting quite large and was over the 25 KB guide but had all the information in one place. What do other people think? Jaws87 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the edits to which you referr. I felt the DVD section needed improving hence my edits. And as for the episode list i felt it was getting to big to be included on the main page. So while im still working on the episode list page i think it should remain as is for now. However i welcome differing opinions Pat 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks, the DVD section is much improved. Sure, we'll leave as is for the moment. Please could you leave in the short episode descriptions though as mentioned on the other talk page? Thanks, Jaws87 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant recent edits and the episode list

message: Why is Oliver Mace listed as being part of the current cast, when in s5e5 it is said that he has resigned. Surely that makes him past cast.84.13.112.35 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oliver Mace

message: There are references to the spinoff rogue spooks, however, there's no mention of this whatsoever at the bbc press office.84.13.112.35 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rogue Spooks

message: Does that long graf in the intro on ending logos and lack of credits really belong in the intro? Amyloo 13:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos/credits 

message: It's odd that this article uses the term "The Grid" but does not explain it. Regular watchers may well know precisely what it means but it is hardly encyclopaedic to assume that the rest of us know. Could someone in the know please include an explanation? 138.37.199.206 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment, ignored since 19/12/07, is still true. You might as well put a sign up over the article saying "for fans only" as in this respect it makes no attempt to cater for the general reader. Come on, surely someone must (a) know what it is and (b) be capable of expressing it in writing?? Please?? :) 92.234.32.127 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive watched every episode of spooks and im not at all sure what the grid is. i believe the inference is that the grid refers to the MI5 office in thames house, But im not sure Pat (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think The Grid was mentioned a lot in the first few series, but I don't believe it has been directly mentioned for a while (perhaps just as a passing comment). ~~ [ジャム][talk] 08:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: That seems a bit draconian.  Why not be WP:Bold and do the write-up yourself? Drmargi (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I don't know what it is and how to define it! It goes back to the original complaint - the article refers to the Grid but doesn't explain it. I don't know what it is so I can't write about it. Anyone who does should indeed be WP:Bold and do it, but look at the progress of this conversation above... it is just not happening. As I think it's ludicrous to make the article depend on something that people can't or won't define I think it should go. With a bit of luck this bit of WP:Boldness will have a beneficial effect - someone will be outraged that I removed it and will be motivated to put it back in and define it BUT WITH A REFERENCE so it is properly encyclopaedic. At the moment it feels to me like insider jargon, and that is wrong. So it might seem draconian to you (though to be honest I do not agree) but maybe it will improve the article, which is supposed to be the point. Or do YOU want to write about it?? :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it's a reasonable question that begs another - if you don't know enough about Spooks to know what The Grid is, why are you editing its article?  It's a pretty basic practice around here that you don't edit where you're not knowledgeable.  Drmargi (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I follow your reasoning. I don't think that I have (yet) edited the article in a way that needs any more knowledge than I have. I would LOVE someone else to edit it to legitimize the use of the expression "The Grid", which currently appears to me as unexplained fan or regular-viewer jargon. To be worried about the latter point I absolutely do not need to be a Spooks expert - rather the reverse, in fact. To correct the problem I need knowledge that I do not have, true. This is why I am hoping that someone will put this right. If you read the article from the point of view of a general encyclopaedia reader, then it is most unhelpful - you come back to the question What is this Grid thing to which the article refers? The article seems to think that The Grid is important (uses it for structure, and it's in the template too) but absolutely fails to say what it is. Is that a position that you find defensible? I think it is extraordinary - it is as if we are saying "well never mind what the general reader makes of this because fans already know what The Grid is and this article is for them". In terms of its treatment of the Grid this article is as much use as a chocolate teapot. It's as if you had an article about St Mark's Square which somehow managed to mention or use Venice while avoiding either linking to Venice or saying what it is ... are you just meant to guess? :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, "if you don't know enough about Spooks to know what The Grid is" sounds like it's a pretty basic, easy, beginner piece of knowledge. Yes? You, presumably, have it and so I guess do others. Why then is it so hard to fix the problem by defining it? DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grid is (/was ??) the set of offices of MI5 - the main area with all the desks and most staff, Harry's office, the conference room, Malcolm's room, etc. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 10:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm. Is it not, perhaps, more that it is Pearce's section rather than the whole of MI5? I can't remember his name but for example the Smooth Interfering Git With Posh Voice is, I think, MI5 staff, maybe the DG or something, but surely he is not a, er, Griddist? Oh dear, look, I seem to have (perhaps) three alternatives at this stage: (1) remove the Grid references (haha geddit) as I proposed above, and hope that someone with more clue will fix it; (2) put in what I think might be a working definition of the Grid even though as Drmargi kindly points out I may be the least-well-qualified internet user on the planet to make this change - and then hope that someone with more clue will fix it; (it sure as h*ll won't cite anything!); or (3) continue to debate it here and wait for someone who does feel they know what they are doing to fix it, provide verifiability, bake a nice cake and sing the National Anthem? (But this wait is getting frustrating.) What do you think? Something like one of these might be a way forward ... I do feel that the nth option, of leaving in place the highly unsatisfactory status quo, will not wash: at the moment, with all due respect, I feel that this particular "feature" alone pretty much qualifies it as a Bad Article candidate, and really really needs fixing ... DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I think those changes reflect the real definition of "the Grid"; it is a location not a unit for people. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me - thank you! Oh doctor, the relief. It will be interesting to see what other contributors make of this (is it rooms, a computer system, an acronym, an actual collection of metal items for the exclusion of wandering cattle etc) but in any case I applaud it as the first time this issue has been tackled by the article. Hats off to Kevinalewis! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then - I think Disillusion is correct - it is offices and areas used by Pearce's section; basically everything behind the pods (the scanners separating the Grid from the rest of the MI5 building). ~~ [ジャム][talk] 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Grid 

message: This section violates WP:FICTION. Articles must be written in present continuous tense. None of the "former" characters were dead in the first episode for example. 59.167.45.168 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote which specific bit of WP:FICTION it violates? A brief flick through that page doesn't seem to suggest this is the case. ~~ [Jam][talk] 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current/Former characters 

message: The article currently quotes an actor from the show stating that Series 7 would start airing this month (September 2008).  Well, it is the end of September and the series has not begun airing yet, with no indication on the BBC web site of when it might.  Is there any more recent information that could be included in the article about this?  --Nothlit (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The BBC Press Office has been exceedingly quiet about the air date for this new series... which is very odd IMHO. The programme information pages don't currently reveal when Spooks is due to air, and there have been no recent press releases regarding series 7. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 7? 

message: This article contains spoilers about upcoming episodes, namely episode 7 of series 7, which has aired on BBC3 but not BBC1.  Normal convention is to wait until a show has aired on the primary channel.  The same problem also exists on the character pages for Connie and Ben.  Could this information be removed until the episode has been shown on BBC1, or at least a spoiler warning inserted?  Spookityboo (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, spoiler warnings aren't used any longer. However, I believe you are correct that the information shouldn't be there until it has aired on BBC One. As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to remove it, but I'm afraid that it is likely to return (the same thing occurs with Strictly Come Dancing - anon users put up results before the results show airs...) ~~ [ジャム][talk] 09:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought so too. Look at the revision history though — anon/amateur users assume "ooh, something happened, so it should be on wikipedia!". I u-turned because if it's going to be edited to include the departures, it's better off being done properly... But yeah, I still consider BBC3 pace spoilers, even though I watch at BBC3 pace! DBD 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are spoilers to those that choose to follow the BBC One stories or don't have access to BBC Three. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, although I think it is likely that such discussion will fall on the deaf ears of those that are actually adding the information. ~~ [ジャム][talk] 22:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst not familiar with this particular convention, I have to say I don't really understand the logic behind it. If we are in no way worried about spoilers surely it should change as soon as the episode is premièred on the network regardless of the channel. --Lemming64 23:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem is the cast.  The even though characters leave during a series, they're part of the cast for some part of the series, and really should remain listed until the next series starts.  That's my understanding of the guidelines for longer-running series (such as ER or Law and Order in the US), and which I think would apply here.  Drmargi (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: Just in case we get into a series of name changes, the head of the FSB station in London is Vicktor Sarkisian (Harry only uses his name twice) and played by Peter Sullivan.  Andre Borodin (Michael Klesic), previously listed, is the head of the kill squad pursuing Lucas, Ros and Connie.  Drmargi (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSB Personel in the Final Episode 

message: I reverted this change and hope the author does not mind too much. Let me explain: I am not violently opposed to this change and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with changing the ordering system, but I do think it's a big enough change that editors might want to discuss it. One thing that was obvious was that the introductory line for the "Cast" section also needed rewriting, or splitting between the "current" and "former" sections, if this change was made. The reason for this is that it says "The main recurring characters, listed in order of fictional seniority (and alphabetically therein), include:" and of course that was rendered untrue by this change. I'd be happy to discuss this further but I thought that without a bit of discussion and without that detail attended to, it might be better to stay with the current version for now. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character ordering 

message: The first listed character is "Sir Harry Pearce, KBE" - surely this is a tautology - he's either "Sir Harry Pearce" or "Harry Pearce KBE", no? Grutness...wha? 03:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I believe you can be both - hence how the Man United manager's full name is "Sir Alexander Chapman Ferguson CBE". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Harry 

message: Could someone possibly edit this section to include the series 8 release dates and details, which can be found here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spooks-Series-8-DVD/dp/B00365KI2Q for Region 2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.171.26 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Section 

message: 'Hidden "off-the-books" in Chile after she was caught making a mistake on an undercover mission.'
I'm not sure that really makes clear what happened.  "Caught making a mistake" sounds like she went to the wrong address or something.  There was a court case and she was sentenced to a gaol term, but was disappeared to Chile with someone else doing the time.  Not sure how to word is, but there's got to be some better way that what we have now. 203.35.135.133 (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoey Reynolds 

message: I've just watched the last episodes of this exciting series. Series 10 which included 6 episodes. From these (and some previous episodes of Spooks) I've got the impression that the CIA dosn't spy in the UK, but sooner controls both MI5 and MI6. Also Mossad and FSB has previosly been acting "in the open". I thought that if MI5 catched any foregin spy ,this person would become arrested for spionage against the Kingdom and sent to prison at the Old Bailey. Is there any UK-citizen that can explain this issues ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody knows the full operational systems of the Secret Services in the UK, but it has been known in the past that some foreign operatives are allowed to continue. This is mostly if they're considered harmless, generally because they've been turned. Alternatively, they may be kept under strict surveillance because exposing or extracting them would damage an existing mission, or cause political issues. As far as the CIA, I don't think they exist officially as spies in this country, but off the record, it's more than likely we've got lots of friendlies situated here, as we will have in our allies' countries. It's all a bit of a shady business. It's a bit out of date, but to get an idea of the background stuff without digging into files, you could read Spycatcher, a book by an ex Military Intelligence officer. drewmunn talk 17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA inside the UK ? 

message: First, I've collapsed all of the conversation here that's not been touched for a year or more (I may have accidentally collapsed some I shouldn't have, so feel free to drag any out). This was quite a long talk page, and as it's not archived, I felt that was the best plan for now. Next, I note that the lede has a massive list of guest stars from across the entire series, all jammed into one sentence. Would anyone object to some serious shortening? I know it's worth a mention, but it's almost listing every famous actor to appear in Spooks. Ever. Cheers! drewmunn talk 17:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A statement and a question

message: Morning all! What started off as a quick edit (see above section) developed into something a little more lengthy. However, I've finished my remodelling of the article (for now, I think), and there's a couple of things that I think still need some work:
*It's still lacking quite a lot of citations. I haven't added any new citations, nor changed any of the old ones, but I think that some more are required to ensure this article is brought up to spec.
*Information is outdated. I've made a few changes on this front, but nowhere near enough. It'd be good if people more knowledgable than me in international broadcasts could fill in some of the spaces in, or update existing part of, the "series" column in the International broadcast section. DVD releases and some minor other areas also deserve some more attention on this front.
*Series synopses need attention. These are one of the areas I haven't touched, but seriously need looking at. They make up a massive proportion of the page, and I might look at breaking them down some time. They've amalgamated over the years, and some patching up has left areas of questionable grammar, and mixed tenses. I might try to port some of the production information from them into the production section, and knock them down to literally blurb summaries, but I'd really appreciate it if someone else could have a crack at it!
*General Cleanup. I've no doubt missed or broken things during my remodel, so please feel free to correct anything I've done wrong. This edit has taken me a good few days to prepare, and my brain has got a bit fried over that period. I apologise for any issues I may have caused, and I hope they're not too common. On top of that, general housekeeping will also most probably need doing to content.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, and I welcome comments or feedback about my remodelling. For now though, I need some rest; my head feels like it's been deep fat fried. drewmunn talk 10:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2013 Taskforce 

message: The cast section really ought not to have information on each character's ultimate fate, as they can be pretty massive spoilers. I would suggest either removing this information, or completely removing the section but keeping the link to List of Spooks characters, as it contains all needed information anyway. I'm very new to editing wikis so don't know the proper protocol for this, some guidance would be welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.20.134 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers in cast section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Spooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925011011/http://www.rts.org.uk/awards_det.asp?id=3102&sec_id=622 to http://www.rts.org.uk/awards_det.asp?id=3102&sec_id=622
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Spooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100613150150/http://www.amazon.co.uk:80/dp/B00365KI2Q to http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00365KI2Q
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110211161151/http://www.amazon.co.uk:80/dp/B003DTMPTO=8-2 to http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003DTMPTO=8-2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Spooks (TV series). 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/20100124153336/http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=9 to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090910005647/http://www.thebookseller.com:80/news/96297-coben-cole-atkinson-vie-for-crime-awards.html to http://www.thebookseller.com/news/96297-coben-cole-atkinson-vie-for-crime-awards.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Spooks (TV series). 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/20051215174702/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215174702/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215174702/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215174702/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215174702/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215174702/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?Requesttimeout=500&report=weeklyterrestrial
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925230855/http://www.itv.com/Drama/copsandcrime/ITV3CrimeThrillerSeason/Abouttheawards/default.html to http://www.itv.com/Drama/copsandcrime/ITV3CrimeThrillerSeason/Abouttheawards/default.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thebookseller.com/news/96297-coben-cole-atkinson-vie-for-crime-awards.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Spooks (TV series). 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/20061214183443/http://www.kudosproductions.co.uk/tv_spooks.html to http://www.kudosproductions.co.uk/tv_spooks.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214183443/http://www.kudosproductions.co.uk/tv_spooks.html to http://www.kudosproductions.co.uk/tv_spooks.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Spooks (TV series). 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/20110106162525/https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/thames-house.html to https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/thames-house.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121045935/http://www.bafta.org/awards/television/tv-noms-2009,709,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/television/tv-noms-2009,709,BA.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified