Talk:The Stolen Earth

Redirect?

Someone should probably autoforward stolen earth to The Stolen Earth, since people might omit the "The" when typing in the search box. Digifiend (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you do it yourself? I have done so now, also for the stolen earth and Stolen Earth. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't have redirects for all possible typo's; it creates a navigational mess. The title is quite unambiguous, and with the title all-caps, also case-insensitive in the search box. — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy, I didn't know how to do an auto-forward myself. Case insensitivity and missing the word "the" are the main typos, which are now sorted, mispellings don't need autoforwarding. What we have now should be fine. Digifiend (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's sorted now, although I would have kept Stolen Earth. As for redirects, see WP:R, it explains it completely :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 12:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a redirect from stolen earth would be fine, as that's the sort of thing that might get typed in the search box. U-Mos (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:R is quite clear; uncomplete titles are not on the list of things that should be redirected, and casing is not a problem here, since the title isn't mixed-case. — Edokter • Talk • 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an unreasonable choice of redirect, and there's certainly nothing in the guideline to prohibit it. And please don't abuse your admin tools by deleting it again: CSD#R3 is for implausible typos or misnomers, of which this is neither. If you want to see it deleted, go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Wurtzel (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stolen Earth" is a misnomer and an unlikely search term, as the title itself - "The Stolen Earth" - is quite unambiguous. "The" is part of the title. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and Wikipedia:Redirect for refernence. — Edokter • Talk • 08:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Trailer

Doesn't this episode mark the first one in years to not have a trailer for the next episode at the end? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.76.221 (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly felt that the big stamped-on letters of "TO... BE... CONTINUED" was somehow a bit un-Doctor Who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.175.57 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention cheap... Coob (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast?

Is there really no guest cast information for this episode? U-Mos (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I expect it would be the same cast as Journey's End. Anyone able to confirm this? Digifiend (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. As we have no sources for it, we cannot add anything just yet. Let's just have patience. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just surprised nothing had been in DWM or something along with other episodes (apparently the whole thing's super top secret). U-Mos (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As the other source said, the one where all the other episode names came from, you are correct, it is supposed to be kept as secret as possible. So DWM most likely doesn't know more than we do or at least did not until now, we will see if further issues report something. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It may also share some casting details with Turn Left - some of the TV listings mags are saying it's a three-parter. Digifiend (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's edition of Radio Times (with the Doctor, Rose, Martha and Donna on the front) confirms the return of Davros at last!!!Blaine Coughlan (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

At least two newspapers printed photos yesterday too. Digifiend (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is Davros confirmed? I didn't notice a reference in the pp 12 - 17 feature. Could you please be more specific, Blaine? Apart from the fact that I just bought it to read that very confirmation, the article will probably need a citation eventually fot the claims U-Mos has added. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Woah there! I'm sure you have the best of intentions at heart, but I added Davros to the cast list with a reliable source (ie the Daily Telegraph). U-Mos (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd accept them as evidence, yes. But seriously, do I have to go to a forum just to get someone to give a page number? :( Perfectly good money wasted. Never mind, it's on page 154 in the "next week" bit. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The army guy from The Poison Sky is in this, just watch the clip for the next episode. If someone could add him to the cast list, please. By the way I have forgot my password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.179.188 (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other guest stars include Ianto Jones (Gareth David-Lloyd), Gwen Cooper (Eve Myles), Luke Smith (Tommy Knight) & Harriet Jones (Penelope Willton). SpiffingAnimal (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC One website has an entire cast listing, which I assume is the most accurate you can get. Maybe use this one as source? Breuls (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image?

Questions...

1. Are any of the images here (spoilers) appropriate, meeting the NFCC?
2. Can we source it?

It seems a pity not to use them, they're so nice! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The assembled cast image may meet NFCC, the others don't tell much. — Edokter • Talk • 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought; the question is now, then - is that blog a RS? I know the person who runs it and know that it's true, but that's no good, of course... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, where did he get it from? — Edokter • Talk • 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He's a media-bloke. They're the images they send to listings magazines. I'm assuming we can't use such material, though? Until it's published in a mag? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If ever. Copyright! Digifiend (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why TreasuryTag asked about NFCC...I would, as Edoktor says, say the assembled cast probably meets the NFCC. They are promotional pictures after all. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As we clearly said above, one image there pretty much meets our guidelines for using copyrighted material. The issue is the sourcing of it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are promo pics, so the source has to be the BBC. Can't we use the blog if the blogger is, as you says, someone who works with such things and thus receives them from the BBC? --SoWhy ^Talk 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But how do people know that the blogger isn't making them himself? I know I know, but the blog is a self-published source of material. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of common sense should tell anyone those pics come from the BBC, because that is the only place it could have come from. But with any luck, the BBC, or another news outlet, will release those images in the near future. — Edokter • Talk • 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I could get away with uploading one? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go; do make improvements to the formatting, size, caption and rationale (on the image-page) - please! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this not be better in Journey's End? Companions such as Jack and Sarah Jane are not confirmed for episode 12 yet. U-Mos (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now :-) The source of the image stated that it is a promo-pic for "The Stolen Earth"... see above. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case I'll stick them in the infobox. U-Mos (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Again, images must meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Please see WP:NFCC#8; the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Matthew (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On such a subjective criterium, you need to base your removal on some solid argument, other then to just cite #8. Until then, revereted with the arguments that such a massive reunion of so much past companions is newsworthy, and therefor increases reader's understanding, both to die-hard fans as well as people who have never seen the show. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your above rational does not state why you need an image and cannot use text. Matthew (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say because most people watching the show only, might not be able to identify Sarah Jane or Jack just with the text. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is written not just for fans, and the image defenitely helpt to identify the cast for those not familiar to them. — Edokter • Talk • 13:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Their respective articles have images; it is therefore clear to me that text is more than adequate. I see no compelling argument here why the image's "presence would significantly increase [the] readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of this image remaining, as per above. U-Mos (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"To show what they look like" is not a good enough reason. Explain why the image is necessary. Matthew (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other articles have no bearing here. Matthew, NO image is ever necessary. Now come up with some argument besides repetatively quoting #8. You are becoming quite disruptive. — Edokter • Talk • 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about you. Last time I checked the onus is on those seeking to include not remove. So no, I don't intend to write a detailed comment about why it does not meet WP:NFCC--it's patently obvious to me that it doesn't. You are welcome to explain why it meets the non-free content policy though. "It shows what they look like" doesn't cut it though. Matthew (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What is disruptive is the edit war that is going onin regards to the image in question. It would be best if this discussion played out completely before another revert to the page takes place. I will be monitoring the page, and I don't want to see "fourth" reverts played out just after the 24 hour time limit expires, because that is clearly gaming the system and still constitutes violation of the policy.

As far as the image is concerned, I have to agree that there doesn't appear to be much reason to have it when the page itself does not actually show a reason to need to exist. Maybe we should work on that issue before worrying about what image to use in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I will not revert this again to avoid an edit war, but I invite you to respond to the hidden message rather than removing the image again: "FAIR USE RATIONALE on image page. If this does fail point 8 (which is debatable), a nomination would lead to it being deleted in due course. Immediate removal is unnecessary." U-Mos (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not in question; this is the penultimate episode of this series, and already discussed in the media. How does this come into the game? Also not that metthew has been reverted by multiple other editors. — Edokter • Talk • 17:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First, U-Mos, how can you say "I will not revert this again", yet you deliberately disregarded my comments to let this lie till the discussion is completely over and did do it again? Reverting up to the third time does not mean you were not edit warring.

Edokter, WP:NOTE clearly says "significant coverage". Being the next to last episode does not make something automatically notable, nor does the fact that a few sources might have mentioned the airdate of the episode. Please read the definition of "significant" at NOTE. The page contains nothing more than a plot summary. But this is not the topic of discussion.

As for Matthew, the fact that several editors are disagreeing with Matthew DOES NOT change the fact that you are ALL engaging in an edit war. Nor does that make it okay to do so. Being the only Admin here, Edokter, I would have expected you to step up and take charge to make sure that this edit war had not occurred in the first place. Obviously, my faith would have been misguided.

In response to the image, I'm not seeing how an image of the cast lends to the understanding of a page that has nothing but a plot summary. There is no discussion of the cast: what it took to bring them together, anything that even remotely says "please use an image to better illustrate what is being said". It isn't like this is a page on the cast, so simple identification becomes questionable. I could also say that the image fails #4, given that no actual source is provided as to where the image comes from (saying "from the press kit" means nothing without some verification to back it up). Also, given that the image is of living people, there being no free alternative becomes questionable as well...then again, I assume it would be hard to get them into their show clothes outside the series. Other than that, the only argument I'm really seeing is the fact that other episodes have them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So far the arguments against the image are reliability of sourcing it and various arguments that it violates NFCC. The former is partly an NFCC issue in its own right, and I will deal with ordinary reliability concerns first, followed by all NFCC concerns collectively. It is common sense that this picture's validity is no more in need of a citation, or indeed helped by one, than the whiteness of snow (a not uncommonly used example in these discussions). There's simply no way of faking this kind of image. Now on to NFCC concerns. Insofar as an NFCC concern is grounds for exclusion of an image from an article, it is a genuine NFCC concern; and insofar as this holds, it is grounds for the image's deletion. I thereby recommend that anyone who does feel such concerns are genuine should attempt to achieve such deletion, as it seems that would be warranted by their position; and, furthermore, I recommend that, as long as no-one is attempting any such discussion, an NFCC argument should not be the basis for opposing the image's inclusion in this article. I am making these recommendations because of a "you can't have it both ways" feeling; these recommendations should not, therefore, be interpreted as taking a side on this controversial question. That'll be taken care of by what I say next. ;)

Meanwhile, the arguments for inclusion are basically that these images are "nice" (as TreasuryTag puts it) and helpful in explaining such things as the secret army. Oh, and the standard used in other episode articles. I have never seen an image on Wikipedia that would resist the "you could just use text" argument, and I think you can judge an image's utility in developing others' understanding of the issue by considering the motives of that image's manufacturers. While purely logical creatures have no usage for images at all, and would prove all geometrical theorems without the aid of any diagrams, it happens to be true (for psychological reasons) that humans do benefit from this sort of image, and we know this because that's why the BBC uses these sorts of images in the first place! I hope that this analysis suffices to fulfill the burden of proof, assuming it falls on those wanting to include the image (which according to policies I suppose it does.) If not, I will add to the case involving standards.

WP:OTHERSTUFF is intended, in my opinion, to safeguard against people calling for content's inclusion because it is similar in its level of vacuousness or lack thereof to material with which little else can be found in common. Yet anything under a Wikiproject, such as Doctor Who episode titles, is in my opinion worth standardizing. For what it's worth, it is worth including images in all such articles rather than excluding them all. This is true not only because of the considerations above, but also because of related concerns elsewhere. Indeed, don't pretty much all articles on TV episodes use an image this way? (Actually no, but all the exceptions I have encountered are in episode articles for TV shows whose episodes on the whole are sufficiently less-than-notable that the episodes on which articles are written are selective, rather than them all being done by workers for a Wikiproject. There is no such thing, for instance, As Wikiproject Peep Show.)

I think I have made my position and most if not all of its causes clear, and I hope I have been polite enough to not be a cause of angst. I think in a way being an unregistered user has helped me, because my inability to edit, hence to enter an edit war (although I would dispute that anyone other than Matthew or perhaps U-Mos is so guilty), means I've not become worked up about it. I don't really want to conjecture about that, however. All I'm saying is, the two-man minority here (three if Digifiend is on their side, but I can't work out what s/he meant), are imo wrong for the reasons outlined above. For what it's worth, I am persuaded by the arguments given above by people such as Edokter for why NFCC#8 doesn't count, but for the moment I do not have any additional argument to offer in criticism of it. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a WikiProject, not even a guideline can contradict a policy. The non-free content criteria for #8 require specific things to be in place to satisfy, specifically the part that says "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Not seeing any significance in understanding with this image, especially when there isn't anything in the article other than a plot summary.

I'm not sure what your argument is on this "it's as real a snow" analogy. If it's toward what I said, then my statements were in regard to sourcing where the image came from. #4 states, "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." Given that the image is claiming to be from a press kit specifically for this episode, we would need to verify such. For all anyone knows, the image is just some random promotional image for all the characters and had nothing to do with this particular episode. Hence, without an actual source we cannot realiably verify where the image came from.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The snow comparison refers to the fact that some things don't need citations. Your sentence "Unfortunately, a WikiProject, not even a guideline can contradict a policy" is, in my view, mistaken. Every policy can, in principle, be foolish to follow; it just depends on context. We ignore rules in many contexts for a variety of reasons. Roughly speaking, the arguments given by my side so far have relied on pointing to ideas why the letter of the policies should be considered less important than the spirit of making a better encyclopaedia. Frankly, I think a classic example is trying to apply NFCC to promotional material. NFCC's rationale is legal. Who is going to sue someone for (technically unauthorised) usage of their promotional products with the effect of ... well, promoting things? As far as the BBC is likely to be concerned, that has the exact opposite effect of "normal" copyvio. I thereby stand by my previous claim that the image shoulod be included in the article. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between ignoring all rules when it benefits an article, and actually writing a guideline or an unofficial MOS deliberately contradicting a policy. How exactly does a lone image of the cast make the article better when there is nothing else in the article but a plot summary? It doesn't add to the understanding of the plot summary, so it doesn't actually do anything but become eye candy - something non-free images should never do. If your argument is, "well, it's promotional and that is what the BBC wants," well Wikipedia is not here to promote ANYTHING; it is here to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia. Non-free images are to be used when necessary to create a better understanding of the surrounding material. There isn't really any material that needs to be clarified via this image at this moment in time. There is nothing discussing the image, there is nothing the image enhances other than colorfullness in the article (which is not a reason to keep an image). I'm glad to see you've ignored my other point that it lacks a published source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Bignole's comments towards me earlier, I stated I would not revert again immediately after my last revert, and I would not do so again, as I said, even if the page was unprotected. The reason I (temporailarly) disregarded your request to let it lie was simply because Matthew had ignored what I felt was a very civil action, where I pointed out that immediate removal, whether the image should be included or not, is wholly unnecessary. I invite him again to respond to this: "FAIR USE RATIONALE on image page. If this does fail point 8 (which is debatable), a nomination would lead to it being deleted in due course. Immediate removal is unnecessary." If the image were to remain on the page with a deletion-consideration notice, people could see it in the article and make an informed decision on whether it should stay. Thus it would not be down to one person simply removing it from sight. Personally I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion myself, even though I don't believe it should be, simply because this would eventually yield a result that would have to be followed by us all. Although this would not work with the image off the page. What I resent is it coming down to the image's current status being decided on whoever gets in there before page protection is enforced. The immediate concern should be whether the image should be on the page while discussion is ongoing, and it seems obvious to me that it should be (especially as Matthew seems rather reluctant to state his case). I apologise if my actions have been less than desirable, but rest assured I am trying to work for what's right here. U-Mos (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All right BIGNOLE, gloves off a little bit.

"There is a difference between ignoring all rules when it benefits an article, and actually writing a guideline or an unofficial MOS deliberately contradicting a policy." This comment, insofar as it is true, is disingenuous in this context. The difference is that a guideline or MOS is just another rule, albeit a less "authoritative" one, like comparing state court to supreme court or something. The real question is at the article level. A "lower" rule may or may not be deliberate in any defiance of a policy it commits, but by definition to defy a rule is simply to say it is sometimes inapplicable. One must ignore one rule or the other, or both; which is it? I argue we should be including the image, just as almost everyone else does. As hard as it may be to spell out the rationale for any rule, big or small, that's what's key, and I think most editors here would agree that the Wikiproject Doctor Who is very sensible to include these images.

As for your NPOV argument, images do not promote views. THat's just playing with words, specifically the verb "promote". It's a pun basically. "Promotion", insofar as NPOV prohibits it, means saying who's right or wrong in a controversial issue. If NPOV can no more tell us to exclude promotional material than to include it, because both take a stance if your reasoning is correct, or neither take a stance if mine is, on any matter.

You say I ignored your point about it not being published elsewhere. My answer was meant to be the following, but I probably didn't make my self clear: requirements of citing other publications in general are based on the problem of original research, unverifiable claims etc. There is no way this image can be the invention of anyone not in a position to qualify. We all know where this image comes from - the BBC, not one of us.

While we're talking about ignoring arguments, I would like you to explain why an image no-one wants deleted is a problem for you in the NFCC sense. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that until we have a better understanding of what this episode is all about that the promo shot fails #8 for this article, might I suggest that it would be an excellent addition to the "Companions" section of the main Doctor Who article, as most of those pictured are described in the text. Even if we think this is a spoiler, the fact that all these actors will be back in the conclusion of this season has been reported, so the image itself is not a problem to include there. --MASEM 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You cannot write a rule on a WikiProject page that says "all episode articles must have images in the infobox regardless", when we have a policy that says "it must meet this criteria". You're contradicting a major rule. You can word around it so that you don't clearly state "violate the rule", but saying things like "when applicable, you should include an image of..."

NPOV is not just for "views". Wikipedia is neutral and does not promote other websites, shows, books, etc etc. Wikipedia does not advertise for shows - since you're saying that the BBC wouldn't care we're using their promo image because it's free publicity, then it seems like the image has not value other than to promote the show. Wiki also is not a repository for images. There must be a reason to keep the image on the page, not simply because it looks nice. That reason is supplied for by WP:NFCC.

Again, you are missing the point about finding a reliably published source for the image. First, if the image was stolen (i.e. someone hacked into the BBC's computer network and stole the image...guess what, that stuff DOES happen) then it cannot be on Wikipedia. If the image was fan created (yes, fans do get the gumption to create their own images and try and pass them off as real ones - just go ask the folks over at Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight (film) how many times they have to fend off fan create artwork which looks damn good and could pass for the real thing) then it needs to be removed, because we do not promote people's personal creations. How would you create it yourself? Photoshop does wonders today on computers, and it's as simple as splicing each character into a background. Works really well when you have a single colored background, like black. Now, before you start, I'm not saying that is the case with this image I'm merely stating the possibility when you don't actually have a source to show that it was published somewhere else. And yes, I have seen really good cut and paste jobs. The point is, you're doing a lot of assuming in regard to the picture's authenticity. How about an actual source that show's it's an official BBC image released to promote this particular episode.

I've already explained why I think it fails NFCC #4 and #8, so there isn't anything I need to waste my energy repeating.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I say again: consider it for deletion. Stick a notice on it. Fine. Good, even. But there is absolutely no reason to remove it without discussion being completed. Speed is not the priority. U-Mos (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the above messages so I'm only replying to U-Mos here. Conversely, why not leave the image out until discussion concludes? I'd also like to point out that a free equivalent could reasonably be created. Matthew (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I see it like this: if the image were to remain on the page while discussion is ongoing, it could be seen by all and seen to be disputed. This would allow a greater number of people (and therefore a better representation) to be involved in the discussion (which would then be done in an offcial and binding manner). U-Mos (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks U-Mos for repeating the point that, if Bignole really feels that way, a deletion notice is worthwhile. Thanks also for that argument about why the image should be up for the moment rather than down for the moment.

I'm going to respond to Bignole's latest post later, as I have a busy day today; but, just as a taster, I'm going to be arguing that he is misrepresenting much of the policy he cites.

I wish this article hadn't become fully protected. I don't want to have to filter all edits through an admin. Mind you, that would give Edokter, who is on our side, lots of power ... but that's bias. (Is Bignole an admin?) I wonder what we'd do if a single issue for an article caused an edit war between admins. :p

OK, one uncontroversial sentence to go out on: Matthew, I know this may sound stupid, but I don't know how this image could be replaced with a free one as per your recommendation (at least not before this whole discussion becomes void due to the episode airing), so could you please enlighten me a little as to what you think could be done, and how (and perhaps even do it ;))? 90.210.193.126 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon, I'm not an Admin so you need not worry about such a thing, nor are my views misrepresenting of the policy. Regardless, you may want to see this page and here. The image is up for deletion, which makes any further discussion on this page moot. Have a good day gentlemen (and ladies if any are present).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be unlocked?

This episode is next week and with new information from todays episode trailer shouldn't it really be unlocked in preparance? Jammy (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that Bignole has made it quite clear that discussion of the image's inclusion in the article is now moot on this talk page, most certainly. It'll probably be given zero or half protection by Edokter, as hardly any other admins have anything to do with Wikiproject Doctor Who. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast

I say if they're in the trailer then they're in the episode, and Ianto, Gwen and Sarah Jane's little helper (Luke?) were in the trailer. So someone stick them in the infobox. On a side note, I'm not sure that Martha is going to be a companion in the true sense in the last two epiosdes. Perhaps she should be moved to guest cast until we know for sure? U-Mos (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No room in the titles... Digifiend (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the speeded up title credit to fit six names caught me out didn't it? Digifiend (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Companions

I belive Captain Jack and Sarah Jane are returning for this episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.16.94 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They are back, it's in the trailer. 82.12.88.229 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dalek Colourings

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the Daleks would nto be the bronze like colouring they have been up until EotD? (the trailer shows a RED Dalek) 82.12.88.229 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's possibly Davros, which is already mentioned. Jammy (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jammy, you clearly haven't seen the (officially confirmed) news and associated images. That's cool. The red Dalek is separate from Davros. Rumours abound about the red Dalek, and those should not be included - but we should mention that this episode marks the first appearance of a red Dalek in the TV series history. (They were previously in the 60s films.) The Judoon's return will also be worth mentioning, but someone will bring that up as soon as the page is sufficiently amenable to editing. So then, we need an admin! 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

End of turn left trailer

Can't we add about the trailer. it featured: rose, martha, jack, ianto and gwen, donna's mum and grandad, sarah-jane, harriet jones, luke off SJA, Judoon, a red dalek, a man pushing a small lever with a black gove (davros), hundreds of dalek spaceships approaching earth, dalek spaceships shooting lasers on earth, more daleks, jack saying that "we're dead", explosions in the TARDIS, a pale french-looking woman (with juddon behind her) shouting "Doctor, come back!", a dalek screaming and a dalek eye-piece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.242.129 (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Daleks coming to torchwood hub (Bibop528) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibop528 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A dalek screaming? I thought that was a Dalek (or Davros) laughing like a maniac. Xmoogle (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the trailer tell us something new? I don't think so, we can only speculate with those informations... --SoWhy ^Talk 21:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It tells us that those characters (and therefore, the actors playing them) appear in the episode. So the cast list could, one presumes, be updated? MultipleTom (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hariett Jones isn't in the trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.64.248 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

She is in the trailer - just for a second, a frightened old woman backing up in her house. MultipleTom (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Screencap of Harriet Jones in the trailer: here Tphi (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing it in here but the trailer also shows Daleks invading the Torchwood 3 hub Prcjac (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC) PS: Just noticed what was added above! sorry

A trailer is always heavily distorted; we cannot extract any reliable information from it. — Edokter • Talk • 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about that in the case of plot, but the guest starring list should at least be updated with all the characters. Ophois (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Ophois. The official trailer irrefutably shows what characters will be in the episode, as stated on screen, "next time". Can't get much more reliable than that. Tphi (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - if a character is seen in the trailer, it is not engaging in any shadowy jiggery pokery with sources to say that they are in the episode. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the Mail on Sunday's "Live" magazine, Paul O'Grady guests in this episode too. U-Mos (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Martha

This seems to have got lo9st in a sea of comments above, so I'll say it again. It seems to me that, while Rose is certinly of companion status in the last two episodes, Martha might not be. Synopses suggest that she is fighting the battle with UNIT on her own for much of the next episode, and it seems to me that she will meet the Doctor in the same capacity as Jack, Sarah Jane et al will. I'm in favour of moving her to the guest cast section both here and in the next episode's article until we know for sure (ie after the episode has broadcast). U-Mos (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I say leave till the episode airs or we have direct confirmation. magicman92 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why she should be in the guest cast until we know she's a companion. U-Mos (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to treat "companion" not as an episode by episode thing, but as a description of a type of character. Jack, Rose, and Martha are all companions because when they have appeared they have been credited in the opening credits. Sarah Jane is a more marginal case, but again, given that she is, historically, very clearly a companion, I think it is, in all cases, accurate to describe her appearance as that of a companion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. I think it generally is done episodically. See The Keeper of Traken, where companion Nyssa is not a companion until her return in the very next serial (Logopolis). Thanks for unlocking, though. U-Mos (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me a clear error - Nyssa's tenure has, in every published source I have ever seen, been stated as running from Keeper of Traken to Terminus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro paragraphs of Logopolis and Nyssa of Traken suggest it was a conscious decision, due to her being effectively "recalled" to the programme after her non-companion role was finished. U-Mos (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, books like the JNT Companions volume and other official reference guides all list her tenure as spanning from Keeper to Terminus - so retagging her as starting with Logopolis is original research on our part. That her status was upgraded after her first appearance is factual information, but we can't go changing the definition of "companion" from the ones in more or less official sources. Likewise, when companions and credit-level characters return, they ought be listed that way. Given the precedent in the cases of Barrowman, Piper, and Agyeman of returning to the credits when they return to the series, barring any evidence that they will be stripped of this status (which two of them have enjoyed this season, and Barrowman enjoyed in very similar circumstances last season) they ought be listed as such. I can see a case being made against Sladen, but I tend to think that, on balance, she is more like Barrowman, Piper, and Agyeman than she is like, say, Mickey. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I think the article as it is now (Jack a companion, Sarah Jane not) is a fair compromise. Whether their roles warrant companionship/not is an issue that can wait till post-broadcast. U-Mos (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

So people are aware, I've requested this page be unprotected so hopefully all this lovely new info can be added in soon. U-Mos (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected. If there are edit wars, please let me know, and I'll see what I can do to deal with it - I think it very important that this article remain unprotected for the next few weeks, since information is likely to come out at a significant pace here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Maria, but not Clyde?

In the Guest Cast section as well as the main description, the character/actress are both cited for Maria, but not Clyde. However, there is no citation provided for Maria's appearance, and yet the omission of Clyde leads one to believe that someone knows that the former will appear but the latter won't. I'm not in the UK, so is there something on the BBC website that leads whoever included Maria to believe for a fact that she will be in this one? I'm assuming that they will both be in "Journey's End", but I have my doubts about this one, and even if Maria makes an appearance but Clyde doesn't, isn't it against WP policy to include something unless it is definitive with a source citing if someone claims to know something for sure?

Homoaffectional (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about the Sarah Jane Adventures spin-off of the show, but I assume this Clyde person will be appearing as there is a boy shown alongside Sarah Jane in the promos that were released today. To be honest, aside from observation of the trailers for next week's show, I don't know where the cast list has come from. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, but not having seen the SJA show, you won't be able to answer the question. The boy next to Sarah Jane is Luke, her adoptive son, not Clyde. Since he's in the trailer, I obviously didn't question his inclusion. I totally accept using the trailer as official verification for the cast list. The problem is that neither Maria nor Clyde are seen anywhere around Sarah Jane's 3 or so appearances in the trailer, so I find it odd that Maria is listed as cast, but not Clyde, and all of this with no citation (as I obviously covered above).~~ Homoaffectional (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that boy is Luke Smith, played by Thomas Knight. Cast list has come from here, but there's a decided lack of Maria, so I'm removing her... _TalkIslander 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Islander. By the way, I also matched your edit in the Guest Cast section with a corresponding one to the main description, since you might have missed that one. Now there is no speculation on this matter, and hopefully people will maintain that trend until there is official confirmation from the BBC or the episode airs, which won't be long now... ~~ Homoaffectional (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know much about that side of the series :), but glad to know where the cast list came from. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah's Attic and the Torchwood Hub

These two locations will be used for the first time in Doctor Who in this episode (the attic must be, else Mr Smith couldn't appear, as for the Hub, that'll probably be Torchwood's starting point). Continuity mention? Digifiend (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the source? — Edokter • Talk • 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hub is never shown before on DW and it will appear (source: trailer). I don't know SJA so I can't draw any SJA-conclusions from the trailer. Breuls (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro mentions that locations cross over. That's enough until broadcast. U-Mos (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the attic must appear because Mr Smith is in the confirmed cast. Digifiend (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's OR strictly speaking, because, although unlikely, it could also feature for example a.) only his voice or b.) Mr. Smith at a different location. The TW Hub is something else, we can confirm that from the trailer. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they've both appeared in the exclusive clip on the website so it is true 86.157.205.159 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro mentions that locations cross over. That's enough until broadcast. U-Mos (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack and Sarah Jane

Jack and Sarah Jane Smith are listed as 'companions' on the official website. Should we change them to be included in the 'companions' box or keep them as guest stars until more specific info is released? Source 24.223.204.69 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep them in the guest stars box until Saturday, or when more info is released. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse Sarah Jane's listed as a companion, look at the Third Doctor and Fourht Doctor adventures. And Jack traveled with the Ninth Doctor82.73.195.228 (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack also travelled with the Tenth Doctor in Utopia, The Sound of Drums, and Last of the Time Lords. Digifiend (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude [protection discussion]

Resolved

I love all this high-speed collaboration. 250 edits in two hours isn't bad. --Mark J (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloody annoying to edit though. Conflict this, conflict that... and who deleted the cast notes section earlier? Why would you do that? U-Mos (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And all that without a single edit on this talk page about the episode since broadcast! Telepathy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And all stopped now because it's fully protected .Garda40 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good! ╟─TreasuryTag ╬ contribs─╢ 20:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm incensed. How dare someone just waltz up to the article and protect it!? We were getting along just fine. No edit wars, no disputes, infact a remarkably peaceful collaboration considering the amount of traffic. --Mark J (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, doesn't make any sense. FULL protection? Really?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the protecting admin, so sit tight. U-Mos (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Does seem odd. No ongoing vandalism or disputes or (as far as I can tell) any other bad editing going on. I've asked why on WP:RFPP. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The protecting-admin has posted a full explanation on his talkpage. I support his move. ╟─TreasuryTag ╬ contribs─╢ 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a wise move, to go from no protection to full protection. Semi would have been enough imho. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree with the move but I don't think it's worth moaning about. Twenty-four hours isn't long. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, there's a crummy link in the plot summary. Would like to smooth that out.Iago4096 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iago4096 (talk • contribs)

Production

Sorry to be a pain in the arse for such a small error, but wasn't Rise of the Cybermen missing a next time trailer also?Vodkamad (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That was in an earlier version, but got removed. I can't say I remember the lack of a trailer. Can anyone confirm?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember it either, but enough people have said it for me to belive it. It says "second" atm, which is at least correct. But "Cybermen" should be specifically mentioned (it should also be put in that epiosde's article, as it isn't there right now). U-Mos (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think rise of the cybermen did have one, it was just after the normal credits. I recall watching it when the episode first aired. Either way it is still rather significant that they are keeping part 2 secret NIKKKIN (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry it must have been changed as i said it lol Vodkamad (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Indigo

I've noticed that in the article it has been written as Indigo Project, when it is the other way round. I'll change it now. magicman92 (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, you can't, the article is protected currently (see above). But do so once that's changed --SoWhy ^Talk 21:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators will perform cosmetic edits or essential (uncontroversial) fixes on request. See {{editprotected}} . --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made these changes for you. Rje (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuty- Three minor points

{{editprotected}} In the continuity section, three things need to be changed. In the list of missing planets The Pirate Planet should be italisised as it is a serial, per WP:WHO guidelines. When it mentions Sarah Jane with the Slitheen The Lost Boy should probably be mentioned, as it also features the Slitheen. Finally, the mentioning of Toshiko Sato, Owen Harper, Maria Jackson and Clyde Langer should also probably be added to the section. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all that. U-Mos (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made the first two changes that you mentioned. I can make the final change if you detail how you would like it formatted, I am not sure how to write it or where to put it from your request. Rje (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And for goodness sake, someone should rewrite it so that the word 'respectively' isn't overused as much as it is. 23:01, 28 June 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.8.250 (talk)

I have removed a couple of them. Rje (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(<-)These appear to have been  Done. The page is no longer protected for established users. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the four-beat rhythm with the sub-wave network? That sounded like the Archangel network's rhythm, also the Master's. Christopherlin (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See discussion below ("Donna at the Shadow Proclamation"), it's speculation to include that as it might be coincidental. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image spoiler

I make the point that the image used in the article itself is a spoiler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.47.236 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that image is a huge spoiler. KermMartian (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows spoilers. I actually think it's a good choice of image, as it illustrates something that would be difficult to describe in words (and hence might actually be allowed to stay in the article). --Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous in terms of spoiler information on a page. Text spoilers are easy to avoid, but a picture above the fold on the wikipedia entry for an episode of a show that hasn't even aired in most of the world? I've seen the episode, so I wasn't spoiled, but I could see people being pretty pissed off at casually stumbling on that picture. Iamo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia:Spoiler says this should be treated with common sense, not that it is an absolute. It also says that it should not interfere with NPOV, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or article quality and I'm not seeing any ways in which choosing a more appropriate image would do so. Iamo (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw it before watching the episode. Oh well. --Christopherlin (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense for the episode image to be a cap of the stolen planets (maybe from the Earth's perspective)? Much less spoilery, and more indicative of the episode as a whole. (Perhaps the regen picture could go on the next ep, as it presumably it would start with it?) Sqrnookle (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this idea, in both parts. The image is really spoiler for those who haven't seen it, and might work better on the next episode. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the image Image:Drwho journeys end.jpg, but it's not the only one that would work. Doctor Who being shot by the dalek would also work well. --Jenny 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree; the image is pretty heavily spoiler-iffic. I don't think it is necessary to take a screen cap of the very last second of the episode and put it up as the first thing people see.--Jorm (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What about an image of the Davros redesign instead? His presence in the episode and the way in which he's been redesigned and played is surely significant in the same way the Sontaran and Cyberman redesigns were. (As a bonus, it wouldn't be a spoiler, as the BBC gave up trying to hide his presence before the episode.) If the regeneration happens, it'd be significant, but it's probably a fake-out. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So does anyone have a good screencap of Davros or a shot of the stolen planets to add? The other reason I advocate the change is that the US and Australia (amongst many other countries) won't have aired it yet, so giving away the cliffhanger is a bit too much. Yes, I know Wikipedia allows spoilers, but then there's such a thing as common decency. --Sqrnookle (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded an image of the Doctor and Donna investigating the missing planets at the Shadow Proclamation, which I think is useful to illustrate the point of the missing planets (I've got one of the TARDIS approaching the missing planets if that is more appropriate) and isn't so spoiler-ish. You can see my updated image here or on the main article (if it hasn't been reverted). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done! I'm happy with that, as it suits the Doctor's path of the episode quite well.--Sqrnookle (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't think there is any reason at all to remove spoilers, this new image just fits the episode much better than the old one did. --SoWhy ^Talk 11:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the regeneration picture. This new one shows, well, nothing much really. If it was completely down to me, I'd put Rose looking up at the planets in the sky in this article, and the regeneration in Journey's End. U-Mos (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, we've got a nearly identical image here. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection review

I know you've probably all been waiting for my response, and I apologise for my delay. Here's the situation as I see it:

• The article was being blitzed with edits. Edit conflicts must have been countless. This makes it an extremely confused and disordered environment. Edits were coming from everywhere: Not just IPs, but established users.
• POV and speculation were being added, but it was difficult to fix because the article was changing at a momentous rate. It was at overkill, and needed to stop.

I do not regret my decision to protect this page. It was a necessary step to stop the blitz editing that was occurring. However, I understand that it is also necessary to fix the errors that remain and cleanup the article in general. Here's my suggestion:

• Unprotect, but only to semi-protection. Assuming that established editors know policies better than unregistered users, it would be helpful to allow editing by only established users.
• Place editing restrictions on the article. Edit warring is strictly forbidden. If you do revert, make sure it's a reasonable revert, and back up your argument with either sources or policies. I am placing a 2-revert rule on this article, and a breach of that will result in a block. Discuss on the talk page; that's why it's here.
• These restrictions will end after 24 hours.
• As for a general note, if editing the plot section, please remember that we are an encyclopedia. We do not need to know the colour of Rose's shirt, the label on Martha's handbag, or what the Doctor ate for breakfast that morning. Keep it short. Keep it relevant. Keep it tidy.

I want all those who are watching this page to signify their agreement to the above terms. After there is consensus in agreement, I will unlock the page. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem agreeing to that. I can't help noting that Wikipedia policies didn't even come close to being violated in any way prior to the page protection. --Jenny 22:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Very fair. Although Jenny is correct on wiki policy violation, I have to agree with Peter on the page protection. The number of edits had become unmanagable. Mark t young (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me; I missed the edit blitz, but I could imagine that would be an editing nightmare. KermMartian (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. This page really needs to be edited, there's heaps of grammatical and spelling errors. -Anime No Kyouran (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected Please be careful. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of this page; I have reviewed the discussions surrounding protection, including most particularly the protecting admin's reasoning. I have compared these to the semi-protection policy. I find no grounds in policy or practise for any level of protection when either no, or very little, vandalism is occuring and there is no edit war in course. In particular, I note the comment that the semi-protection has been motivated as "it would be helpful to allow editing by only established users". This is, in fact, a direct contradiction to the purpose, policy and practise of semi-protection policy which says, in terms, that it is not to be used to prevent anonymous editing. Rather shockingly, I see further that the protection has been used merely to prevent edits in general, because there were too many of them. This is a wiki; it gets edited and that's (a) a good thing and (b) the thing that makes it world-famous. There being no grounds for protection, and the grounds given being in contradiction to policy, practise, necessity and even, arguably, foundation principles, I am going to unprotect forthwith. Splash - tk 01:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if another admin unprotects, I'm not going to revert it. Nevertheless, the protection was agreed on by two admins who focus a lot of our time on RFPP (Tanthalas39 and myself, supported by numerous editors). It was becoming impossible to work. Semi-protection for 24 hours was perfectly acceptable in the circumstances. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Music from Lost???

I could have sworn that a few times the theme from Lost was inter-mingled on the show. Anyone else notice this? I didn't want to put it in the article unless someone else could corroborate this.blx (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an approximate time, or a description of the scene in which the musical similarity is most evident? Please don't add this to the article, even if you're sure it sounds like Lost (see no original research). --Jenny 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just before Rose teleports in for the first time. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The bees

Now that we have an actual, verifiable, in-universe explanation for the disappearing bees in the story, could we please agree that it has absolutely nothing to do with Colony Collapse Disorder? Unless someone wants to argue that Doctor Who really exists and some bees really are aliens, the bees storyline should not be linked to that real world concern any more than Aliens of London should contain a link to Pigs fly. --Jenny 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that DW has previously connected real world events to results of events in the show (eg "Earthshock", "The Fires of Pompeii"), there's no reason not to connect the points, as long as it's clearly stated in the context of the fiction. --MASEM 04:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't Doctor Who connecting real world events to fiction, it's us connecting real world events to fiction. --Jenny 06:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's Dr Who connecting real-world events to fiction. Donna's statements of "all the bees disappearing" in previous episodes is an obvious reference to CCD. There's nothing else it could be, given that it is a current world event during Donna's subjective present. All the Doctor did is give a (fictional) reason for a (real world) occurrence. Within the continuity of the show it's perfectly accurate. Yes, of course, IRL it has nothing to do at all with CCD but in the universe of the show, which is the important thing here, it IS the reason behind Colony Collapse Disorder. Like Masem said, there's no reason not to connect the two. 124.148.92.245 (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please rewatch the episode. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's original research in the absence of a source linking the fictional disappearance of bees to real life reports of colony collapse disorder. --Jenny 10:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. WHile CCD might be the case in DW as well, it's not the same CCD described in the article and thus linking them does connect things which are not connected --SoWhy ^Talk 11:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Donna at the Shadow Proclamation

Shortly before she is approached by one of the albino women, Donna sits on a step and seems to hear a heartbeat-like drumming, reminiscent of that experienced by The Master in Utopia (Doctor Who). Did anybody else notice that? I saw it twice. --Jenny 04:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I did, but we cannot speculate what will happen (cannot wait till next week!hehe) Lovingnews1989 (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We also heard it on Donna's laptop, I think, over the subwave network.--Mark J (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Above, I noted that the four-beat rhythm is that of the Archangel network, as previously heard in "The Sound of Drums". This is not the Master's sound of drums or heartbeat. --Christopherlin (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Valiant?

Err... unless I compltely missed a scene, the Valiant did not appear. Did it? U-Mos (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

At about 15:24 on the iPlayer, there's a shot of Daleks firing at the Valiant, and then in the next scene Torchwood receives a communication and Jack says "the Valiant is down". --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 09:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse for a lovely CGI sequence of daleks over the carrier. You know I think they should have gone the whole hog and got Angelina Jolie to play the commander of the Valiant, with an eye-patch. [1]. --Jenny 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-Assessment

The article is still classified as "stub" in the infobox for the DW-WikiProject, I think it needs to be re-assessed to correspond it's current state. I myself do lack the experience to do so, so will anyone else do the task please? --SoWhy ^Talk 10:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, the class can be changed at the top of this page, in templates that are trascluded like {{this}}. See also WP:Article assessment. I've now rated this as "Start-Class" on the quality scale, and with a bit of improvement it can make B-Class. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor's Mobile Number (2).

Has any tried to phone the Number that is shown as the Doctor's number as it might be some sort of viral marketing or clue to what is going to happen next. I have heard of other comapanys doing this and wondering if the BBC was doing the same thing. Mr C Mag (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

07700 900461 is a non-allocated number recommended by Ofcom for drama purposes. EALacey (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the top notice. This page is for discussion about the article only.. Please do not clutter the page with off-topic and forum-like discussion. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this is one question that is likely to recur on this page (everybody wants The Doctor's number!) Perhaps we should put a note at the head of this talk page to forestall further unnecessary comments. --Jenny (recently changed username) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's actually a fact worth mentioning in the article, as the number was shown for the first time. --SoWhy ^Talk 16:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's as maybe; I don't know. But the way the question was worded: "...as it might be some sort of viral marketing or clue to what is going to happen next..." is speculation, so WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS come into play. I'm not some policy-spouting machine, and I'm sorry if I come across that way. However, it's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia. Updating things as they happen is fine -- that's what we're about -- but they must be backed up by sources. That's the whole point. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an unallocated number for use in drama (see the notice I added to the head of this page). Dialling it won't result in a connection being made so there should be no charge, just a disappointing announcement or tone from your telephone service provider. --Jenny (recently changed username) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If it can be clearly cited as a viral marketing campaign or whatnot, it might belong in production or even a new subsection of such entitled marketing. That episodic articles haven't been doing this (what with the comics, magazines and Doctor Who Confidential television series program) all along is beyond me. Maybe folk are concentrating a bit overmuch on continuity issues betwixt runs to the fridge. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Shadow Proclamation

Now that something is known about the shadow proclamation, shouldn't there be a separate page for it, instead of just a one liner on a re-direct page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.34.139 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is enough to build more than a stub, hop to it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode length

The length of this episode is mentioned as 45 minutes. Was this not 50 minutes as per schedule listings? The Radio Times has the timing as from 7.10pm till 8pm. -TonyW (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Radio Times can normally be taken as definitive, and the BBC's IPlayer service confirms the length at fifty minutes. --Jenny (recently changed username) 16:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Once an episode has aired, only one source on its length counts - how long it is! Watch your own recording of it, or the iPlayer version, or an illegal download (e.g. on Bittorrent) - either way, the exact length is 45 minutes 40 seconds. That's 45, end of. (Well, 46 I suppose, but we round it to the nearest 5 ... unless it's Last of the Time Lords, for some reason.) 90.206.183.223 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

More for continuity section

Should it be mentioned in the following sentence that Toshiko Sato had previously been seen in "The End of the World" with the Ninth Doctor, which was also mentioned in "Fragments."

“ Similarly, the events of Torchwood episode "Exit Wounds" and the deaths of Torchwood personnel Toshiko Sato and Owen Harper are referenced by Gwen and Ianto in the face of what they feel is imminent death. ”

“ Similarly, the events of Torchwood episode "Exit Wounds" and the deaths of Torchwood personnel Toshiko Sato, who met the Ninth Doctor in "The End of the World" and spoken of in "Fragments," and Owen Harper are referenced by Gwen and Ianto in the face of what they feel is imminent death. ”

I have a feeling that the mention of the space pig from "The End of the World" in "Fragments" was probably a really quick fix for the Torchwood writers to explain the actress's crossover, but it may be significant to readers to be reminded, especially with Harriet Jones on the screen as well from the same episode. - LA @ 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It was to fix a continuity error, Tosh (or Dr Sato as she was credited) was covering for Owen in Aliens of London (not The End of The World). Digifiend (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Jones willingly sacrifices her life . . .

Did Harriet Jones actually die? It wasn't shown that she was exterminated, in fact, just before the Dalek fires it's gun can be seen to move to the right which might indicate that it was simply firing at her computer (seen to be to Harriet's left, the Dalek's right)in an attempt to bring down the subwave network. Additionally, when the Dalek's shot is heard Harriet's computer transmission is lost from the other screens which would seem to suggest that it was her computer that was fired at, not Harriet herself.

Maybe this entry can be amended to say that "she was willing to sacrifice herself" until it can be confirmed whether she actually was exterminated or not.

220.240.19.84 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Swampy

She's a minor character and there's no reason to think she'd come back. If she does we can revisit it. --Jenny 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the act of sacrifice doesn't necessarily mean death. To say she sacrificed herself is accurate, because dead or alive she forsook her safety to get the signal through. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should phrase it correctly, whether she is a minor character or not, we have no proof she died from the episode and thus we cannot write "died..." in the article. It's quite simple. The current revision is correct, as it does not imply her actual death. We should not write "she died" just because it's likely - it's Dr. Who after all^^ --SoWhy ^Talk 11:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My current choice of wording is that she hands over control to Torchwood as the daleks close in to kill her. This describes what we see on screen--the daleks clearly state their intention of killing her ("exterminate", in their quaintly blood-curdling choice of phrase). The outcome is uncertain so we don't state it. --Jenny 11:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded this as Harriet, well aware that this will reveal her position but ready to sacrifice herself to the cause, starts the signal, transferring control to Torchwood at the last moment as the Daleks burst into her home. Harriet's webcam feed goes dead over the sounds of Dalek blaster fire. This neither confirms/denies Harriet is dead, but captures the fact that she was expecting to die over this. --MASEM 12:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A little verbose, but looks good. --Jenny 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity? Billions of phones all calling out at once.

Is this a reference to S3 where everyone called on earth called the Doctor? Martin451 (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Phones =/= people, and neither side is empowered in the conventional sense. It's a stretch at best and would need a source. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A rather specific source, at that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Master's Four Beat Rhythm

Now I might have been imagining it, but when I watched the episode I swear I heard the 'Sound of Drums' - the four beat rhythm the Master always complained of hearing in his head - on two occasions. One is when Donna is sitting on the steps at the Shadow Proclamation thinking, and a strange beating starts in the background. The other is when Rose is sitting with Donna's family and Harriet Jones' message starts to come through - in the second one, the four beat rhythm is very clear. Is it just me, or did anyone else notice this? And if so, is this reference to a potential appearance by the Master worthy of note somewhere? Jjmbarton (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is considered original research. And without citation, is complete and utter speculation. But I had similar thoughts when watching the episode. Not to mention the bubbling hand Toomanysidesofme (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the first instance when Donna was sitting on the stairs, but not the second, I'll have to re-watch the episode. The first instance of the drum beats along with the comment by a member of the Shadow Proclamation that Donna is "Something new" has led to speculation on the internet that Donna is a "Human Timelord", hopefully all will be revealed next week. 220.240.19.84 (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Swampy 10:13am (UTC +10)

Yes, let us wait until the last ep before trying to get all fan-forum-like and predict what will happen. We try hard to squish those inclinations here.

Companions everywhere, so where are the guest stars?

Why are we listing people as companions when we have approximately no citation to do so? The infobox template for Doctor Who allows for Cast (main), cast cast and guest stars. Barrowman et. al belong in guest stars, apart from the incidental cast and certainly not as Companions, with is a synthesis conclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just go to the Series 4 Characters section of the official BBC website where Donna, Rose, Martha, Jack and Sarah Jane are all listed as "companions." Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but they are not listed (in either citation or BC credits) as Companions for this episode. They are instead listed under the heading of "Also Starring". As well, Captain Jack Harkness is not listed as Companion in the Torchwood series. Nor is Sarah Jane listed as such in her eponymous adventure series. That link you provided notes that they have in fact traveled with the Doctor before. This episode makes no reference to that, and us categorizing the cast in such a way is us advancing the position that noting these people as such is important. We don't get to make that call. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but "per discussion" does not mean that you say so and then change the article. The BBC lists them as companions, they place them where companions are placed in the credits. We can discuss, like we did on Turn Left to death, but please curb your enthusiasm until we did so. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but "per discussion" does not mean that you say so and then change the article. The BBC lists them as companions, they place them where companions are placed in the credits. We can discuss, like we did on Turn Left to death, but please curb your enthusiasm until we did so. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm as well, but perhaps you had never heard of WP:BRD? The BBC does not list them as companions within the scope of this episode. They are not listed as such in the articles of either Torchwood or Sarah Jane Adventures, so there is precedent for no doing so here. Please stop using your own knowledge of Doctor Who; it is a liability and a blind spot for you in terms of remaining neutral and objective in this article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't, because, hey, it's not a policy. And in this case, you could have used it wrong, because it says be bold first, then discuss. You posted here before you edited, so my point is still valid: You could have waited for others to discuss. I am sorry, that you think I am not neutral but you might consider that you yourself do the same things you accuse me of doing. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read BRD a 'lot more carefully, please. That I chose to propose a change in the article discussion before making a bold change is polite, not sinister. As for suggesting that I am doing what I am suggesting is occurring here, please note that I am not synthesizing any info. I a ensuring that the article is accessible to any and all users, not just the fans. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you what Martha is considered in The Doctor's Daughter. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

She is considered a companion, as you can see from The Doctor's Daughter. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was not posed to you. I'm trying to make a point here. :)Toomanysidesofme (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the people listed in the opening credits are to be considered companions. ╟─TreasuryTag ╬ contribs─╢ 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say... the same as Treasury Tag. Opening titles = companion status. U-Mos (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd say that you are synthesizing an argument to that effect. Please offer a citation that specifically lists them as companions in this episode, and we will be fine. As well, cite how opening credits = companion status Without it, there ain't no way in hell. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning as well. If they were special guests, they'd have added it to the "Also Starring" part of the credits... --SoWhy ^Talk 17:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. If anyone really has an issue, there should be an also starring. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather my point. They should be listed as either "also starring" or guest star"; companion is synthesis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There is an "also starring" in the episode itself(!) and the BBC did not put them there (like Gwen Cooper or Luke Smith for example), so to claim they are starring or guest stars would be rather against the source we have. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the doctor who project. We are adhering to the policy "Cast lists should adhere to the way that they are listed onscreen". On the flip side there is no guest star citation for the rest of the cast, yet we do. It is because it is defined by the project. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just it, SoWhy - you don't have a source noting them as Companions in the context of this article. It is synthesis (advancing them as such without connecting citation regarding the episode); we don't use OR here. There is precedent for not listing them as such in their own articles or their related articles. Therefore, we don;t do it here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, anything is OR. We have no specific citation listing anyone as anything, yet everyone has to be listed as something. One thing that should be clear is that titles listing = more than guest star. The project infobox has Doctor, companions and guest stars. They're not the Doctor, and they're not guest stars. So they're companions. It is not possible to do everything from sources; Wikipedia sometimes has to make its own decisions. And as long as title listings means companion across the project (and it does), it is fine to say so. U-Mos (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the source at the top of this section lists them all as series 4 companions. Are Jack and Sarah Jane in any other series 4 episodes? No. And if they're companions, are Martha and Rose? Yes. Yes they are. U-Mos (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) With respect, Wikipedia does not get to fill in the gaps left by incomplete sources. That is OR. With respect, sources that note the use of the squareness gun directly attribute (via citation) its use in one episode or another. That isn't us doing the connecting - it is a source doing so. That is all we get to work with. If it is not possible to do everything from sources, then we abstain from trying to do it anyway. We are not notable or citable; therefore, our voice is inconsequential to the article.

Why we cannot adjust the infobox template to reflect the usage of "Also Starring" somewhat escapes me. It isn't one or the other, it is a fix it so those aren;t the ony choices available. As it isn't speculative to note that they also star (the BBC credits, which the Project has decided to slavishly follow instead of wiki-wide consensus) lists them as 'also starring,' not companions. Using our prior knowledge, advancing and defining them as Companions in this episode is outside of sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec comment) No, the source at the top of the section lists them as companions in the program, not in the scope of this episode. You may not argue the connection between two sources, as we use only secondary sources of folk who have made that argument themselves. Again - we are not citable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in the series 4 section of the website. This directly shows them to be companions in series 4. So they are companions in this episode. U-Mos (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have already addressed that synthesis; they are not connected. We need a citation specifically noting them as companions in this episode. You are taking a piece of information regarding a series and using it to create an infobox reference, mainly because you are not being offered other choices. I suggest alternatives exist and/or can be created. Please note a source that says they are defined as companions for this episode, and you've got my complete agreement (well, not complete, but close enough for hand grenades). Without it, we cannot connect the two. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But if they're companions in the series (as the website clearly labels them), and they're not in the series at all until this last two-parters, then this does show that they are companions here. That's not an assumation, or an interpretation, it's collecting facts together to reach the truth of the matter. That's what an encyclopedia does. U-Mos (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we provide specific citations that correctly reflect material. You are speculating that, because they are not utilized before now, that the BBC general reference noting them as companions applies to this episode. You are using information that is drawing upon your interest in the series (and a general remark from the website) to classify them as Companions. The Episode opening (and closing) credits do not list them as such. Without a citation listing them as Companions for the purpose of this episode, we cannot call them such.

It bears reiterating that neither the Torchwood nor the Sarah Jane Adventures articles, or any subsidiary episodic articles list them as Companions. If the BBC generalization of who is a Companion were to apply, we need to re-write every Torchwood and SJA article (and character article, and episodic article) of the past year to reflect this companions status. We won't because they are already accurately depicted and defined. That is specifically why we need a citation connecting the Companion descriptor to this article. Without it, we are connecting hte dots, which an encyclopedia does not do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne is unfortunately right, the source isn't reliable as there is obviously ambiguity as to what it is referring to. I suggest, as I did with Turn Left, a revamp of the Infobox to make it more compatible with the erratic casting of recent episodes, especially as characters such as Rose, Martha, Sarah Jayne and Captain Jack are likely to be cast again at random intervals. If we don't, we're never likely to resolve this issue. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest an addition of "Also Starring" to the template, after Starring and before Guest Starring (which I think would be more flexible to call, quite simply, 'cast'). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we went by BBC's press release, Freema Agyeman in The Doctor's Daughter is also considered a "guest star". No one besides Tennant and Catherine Tate are mentioned in The Stolen Earth press release. I personally assume that is to keep the return of these characters under wraps. Because most other guest stars are stated in the press release. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. Even if they're not labelled as companions, they still need to be labelled as "Stars". Ophois (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, your statements are becoming tiresome; you are applying the sourcing policy too tight; Common sense is enough to place the five as companions, as they are listed as companions on Series 4... and this episode is part of Series 4. Therefor, we do not need to source them to this episode specifically. I will have to ask you to please take it down a notch... you are currently wikilawyering, and that doesn't suit a Wikipedia editor. — Edokter • Talk • 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what, EDokter, perhaps you could address the edits instead of the editor; you are an admin - either act like it, or voluntarily de-sysop. You are interpreting the sourcing policy too loosely, and your continual IAR-style of reasoning is in fact wrong. Address the edits only, please. And I will suggest that if you find my edits tiresome, you can always go elsewhere. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am acting as one, Arcayne. I know what I see: an editor trying to press an issue against consensus, tying everyone up in endless discussions. I am asking you once again: Please tone it down. People will disagree with you and others all the time, but unlike you, others don't press the issue as you are doing now. — Edokter • Talk • 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You could be asked to do precisely the same thing, EDokter. You have been resistant to any change whatsoever in these articles, and attacking anyone who chooses to dissent with your view that thing are all hunky-dorey. Calling people names neither resolves the issue nor inspires them to offer your words purchase. Admins don't act like that, and I believe you are not too far gone to realize that. Calm the hell down, and respond to edits and not the editor. For my part, I do hear what you are saying; I just do not think your assessment to be accurate. This is a Doctor Who article in the Doctor Who wikiproject and you are a fan. Of course, you are going to see anything which tends to lessen how fantastically, marvelously better this article/wikiproject is over every other one. Resistance is going to occur. By respecting other viewpoints, you have a far better chance of converting believers over that you ever will with calling them names. I press the issue because its important. My agenda does not involve touting the article and subject matter as the best thing since sliced bread, but instead elevating it so it can be a featured article and more in line with the rest of our featured articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Also starring"

Can we please stop adding these fields? Cast members either star or guest-star; there is no in-between. Such fields only provoke more speculation and original research. I have removed them once again. Please do not re-add. — Edokter • Talk • 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... seeing as there is no "Star" category to put them under, a new category is needed. Ophois (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By defenition, any non-regular cast member is a guest star. No extra fields are necessary; as you can see above, it provokes even more needless discussions. — Edokter • Talk • 18:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Someone who is noted as not being a regular member of the cast but still opening credits billing is considered a special guest star. Either you follow the BBC credit roll or you don't. We don't get it both ways. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They are currently listed as guest star. "Special" is your own wording; we do not need such a distinction, that is entirely cruft. — Edokter • Talk • 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, wrong. The BBC credits list them as "Also Starring". Due to the vagaries of this particular program, it is one of the many reasons I have suggested a uniform way to address them. As you oppose anything that would better organize the info, I am not sure what wuld please you. It is not going to go back to the way it was. I urge you to make your peace with that, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, abide by consensus; It is against you. Now stop pressing the issue; that is disruptive. This is now an official warning. — Edokter • Talk • 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would urge you to consult with another admin - one perhaps a bit more neutral and not so much a fan - to issue such a warning, sport. Simply expressing dissent and advocating a change in a wikiproject resistant to change is not disruptive. Far as I can see, I haven't called anyone a feltch monkey or ass-clown. Examples would be like 3RR, edit warring, and wikistalking others edits, etc. How many of your 3RR have you used today in article space? How about Turn Left? Hmm. Tell you what. I am officially warning you that your behavior in attacking other editors is disruptive. Please stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As well, I am not the one who altered the template fields. I am simply advocating a change, to which some seem to agree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the consensus that most people are fine with. They are not listed as companions or "guest star", and with rightful place in the cast/starring. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could please show where the BBC has called them "also starring"? I haven't seen that. U-Mos (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Crap, I loaned my copy to someone else. I would presume it was in the opening credits, right after the listing of Tennant and Tate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it listed Tennant, Tate, Agyeman, Barrowman and then "with" Sladen and Piper. DonQuixote (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, DonQuixote. http://youtube.com/watch?v=G2GiiUq6KSY Ophois (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's no mention of "also starring" or "additional stars." Entirely our invention, therefore OR as Edoktor mentions above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they are part of the cast. Therefore they cannot be under guest starsToomanysidesofme (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As Toomanysidesofme said. Just because there is no "Also Starring" makes no difference at all... they are still credited as stars... Ophois (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so they should be listed as "companions", as the BBC site has designated them and how the infobox was in the first place!Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going for a consensus here. I'm back and forth on this issue personally. Per BBC press release they are guest star, but WE designate guest stars differently (which really is the real issue). For evidence for them listed as companions, yes the BBC sites does list them under, as it is their designation. They are referred to as former companion by Harriet Jones, once they meet the Doctor again, they are companions again, right? Then we have the compromise of also starring, which would be the easiest way and one I think everyone can be happy with Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that they should be listed as Companions for this episode. However, they don't belong under Guest Stars, and I'd rather have them as Companions than under Guest Stars. Anyways, for everyone who cites the press release labelling them as "guest stars", the BBC is just the company that produces/orders the episodes. The actual episode itself - what this article is about - lists them as stars. Logically, at least to me anyways, that would take precedence over anything the BBC releases. Ophois (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the external source takes precedent. Wikipedia runs entirely on secondary sources; our opinion doesn't matter at all. We can organize how the info is presented, but we do not get to dictate what gets said. We have sources that state also starring and less specific statements noting them as companions. We should opt for the also starring and either add a category to the template or simply list them witht eh other cast; they are certainly not listed as companions for the purposes of this episode. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be ordered like this:

Anyone in the title sequence goes in the "cast" part.

Actors whose names get plastered at the beginning of the episode go on the top of the guest cast.

People in credits only should go after them.

Also, I think we shouldn't aim to exactly cutpaste the credits if we get more information in the episode (for example, if Sanchez got a first name in the episode, we should use that). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable to me. We shold pay heed to the concerns of loading up the infobox. Some episodic articles con't even list cast int he infobox. I don't think that's necessary, but we should exercise some restrain in listing every bit part. Their moms are going to be proud no matter what. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I did a trial several months ago of removing characters such as "Scared Man", but it's hard to draw the line, especially when you get to permanent production team members such as Kasey and Briggs. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First we need to establish where to put them. "Additional stars" or "Also Starring" are completely non-encyclopedic in my view. The Radio Times already listed them as Guest stars, so I see no reason not to list them there; they are not recurring anyway.

And I agree we coudl trim some of the cast, starting with non-recurring extras and those with tittle screen-time. But we do run the risk of breaking NPOV here... — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the versions of the infobox had the field add_stars, which allowed bullet points in the Cast section. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is always the risk of that, especially in articles and projects where fans and the fan mindset come into play. Culling the non-recurrents with little dialogue is an excellent way to start. Also starring apparently has been used in a printed source, so it is actually pretty encyclopedic. However, I am only opposed to listing a bunch of people as Companion without specific citation; I hae no problem with listing as Cast and Guest Starring or, simply, Cast. We could list them as guest stars, but then, without alphabetizing that list, we are going to constantly encounter the problems of recentism and favoritism (not to mention the nonsense of some BBC minor editor in charge of the credit roll). I suggest we alter the ordering thusly to avoid that from being a recurring problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we have been pretty clear about this: the cast is ordered according to the end credits. — Edokter • Talk • 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordered by ending credits (though on several occasion you were bent on reverting to opening credits), but the opening credits signifies who is cast. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could the part about how we list cast credits be pointed to? I cannot seem to find that particular guideline anywhere. Witout it, I think the matter is anything but clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you just stop? Not everything needs a guideline. — Edokter • Talk • 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you saying that there is nothing saying that we list cast credits in a particular way? Sorry, in the absence of guidelines, we go it the normal way - we alphabetize it. Please feel free to open an RfC in regards to this issue, if you wish on the wikiproject. And no, I am here to help make sure that we create good articles. We don't do them differently just because you think they are prettier another way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like to point out that the previous method for listing the cast, before it got moved to the infobox, was to copy the on-screen end credits. This could solve the problem of "companion" vs "starring" vs "also starring" since we're just copying the primary source. So for "Stolen Earth", it would be something like the following in the infobox

The Doctor -- David Tennant

Donna Noble -- Catherine Tate

Rose Tyler -- Billie Piper

etc.

...or in the case of "Parting of the Ways"

Doctor Who -- Christopher Eccleston

Rose Tyler -- Billie Piper

etc.

Anyway, just a thought. DonQuixote (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Edotker, Arcayne you are being disruptive get rid of the also starring section its not needed, they are companions, the episode is a grand finale with all companions coming back, and Edotker has not been calling people names, you are the uncivil one I'm afraid, you have falsely accused people of name calling, used no edit summaries in your reverts(this is equal to vandalism, as vandals don't use edit summaries), typed comments in capitals or emboldened them which looks like shouting and now your calling Edotker names what is the EDotker bit for?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane and the Daleks

The previous version of the article mentioned Sarah Jane leaving her home to meet with the Doctor, with no mention of her encountering the Daleks on her way. Thus, the final line of the article - about her facing Daleks "bent on exterminating" her, made no sense. I added in the bit of how she almost crashed into two Daleks as she drove to rendevouz with the Doctor. 24.19.25.79 (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regeneration style

For the second time, I have had to remove the bit about how the Doctor's regeneration style resembles another's. That is one editor pointing out their observations, which we cannot do, as per WP:SYN. Find a citations that says the same thing, and we are all copacetic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really not. They are the same style, they're not similar, they are the same. This is notable as no two Doctor regenerations have been done in the same way before (even if this one won't end with a new Doctor). U-Mos (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For that very reason of notability, it requires a citation noting the similarity/sameness. Otherwise it is you noting that similarity. You aren't citable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Graeme Harper, the director, was interviewed in Doctor Who Magazine and said that Russell T Davies asked him to film the regeneration of the Master in Utopia "exactly the same as [director] Joe Ahearne had done when Chris Eccleston changed into David in The Parting of the Ways. 'Every kid should recognise this a a regeneration,' he said." (It's issue 384, page 17). So a deliberate decision has been made to do them in the same style.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And THAT"S what I was looking for, U-Mos: a citation noting the similarity/sameness. I am not against inclusion (I almost never am), but I do insist on citation. Cite it and it shouldn't be a problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you being needlessly anal about this? Surely the "continuity" section for this and most other episode pages are based almost entirely on what people see or hear in the episodes, and drawing comparative conclusions. For example, it says, "Davros is seen to have a metallic right hand..." How do we know it's "metallic"? Why aren't you asking for a citation for that? The bottom line is, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... Nick Cooper (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Nick, I am not. You may have noticed that this is an encyclopedia, and not your local pub haunt. As per WP:SYN, a part of our WP:NPOV policy, comparative conclusions are not allowed. We do not connect the dots; we cite folk who do that for us. Your previously (and wisely) deleted¹ example rather clearly indicates that if something is part of the episode, it doesn't need citation. The unwise example you did decide to use demonstrates that you might need to read up a bit on our synthesis policy a bit more. Pointing out that which is clear is okay. Offering a reason for it is speculative. We don't do that here. To use your comparison, I would point out that uncited, speculative information is almost always a lame duck, and subsequently, a dead duck as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously anal enough to trawl through discarded edits to make a sad point, as well. You must live a fascinating life. Obviously the Who-Mafia have got these pages sewn up, so I'll leave you boys to them in future. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating this and asking Arcayne to identify exactly what constitutes a "personal attack," particularly in the case of my first comment (12:00, 2 July 2008)? It seems to me that you are choosing to see one where none existed, just to get rid of an observation you don't like, but which I maintain in an valid one in the context of the preceding discussion (i.e. you suggesting that we need citations for what is plainly obvious from actually watching the episode). I would note that you seem to think it OK to turn up on my Talk page with veiled threats and also to paint me as some sort of pub bore/lout (ironic, since I don't do pubs, let alone have a "local"). The words "pot" and "kettle" immediately spring to mind. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone whatch Confidential? Was this mentioned? U-Mos (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think RTD said the same in Confidential that they wanted to make the same effect for all regens. But I'm not sure I remember correctly... --SoWhy ^Talk 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I did watch DWC, and I don't recall any mention of that. There was reference to regeneration, but nothing about standardizing such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he said that in the confidential following Utopia --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thing on Donna's Back

To me the incident with Donna on the staircase seems very odd. The woman at the Shadow Proclimation very clearly 'sees' the thing on Donna's back as though it's there currently, and Donna responds as though she already knew it... Presumably Donna thinks she's referring to the events in "Turn Left", but as a viewer it seems to very likely signify something else. spiderwing (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember the episode, the girl uses past tense and says "was something on your back". --SoWhy ^Talk 13:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That heartbeat sounded oddly familiar. Romanadvoratrelundar, is that you in there? --Jenny 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jenny, that's speculation. Somebody suggested she might be a Time Lady on Teletext's TV Talking Point page. WP: FORUM Digifiend (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

I don't agree with the reintroduction of the Continuity section. Look at Partners in Crime, which is a Featured Article – that's the layout we should be following. A continuity section just leads to the article being bloated with fancruft that is of little interest to the general reader; what's there was already adequated covered in the Writing and Casting section.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Continuity allows referencing to other episodes within all 30 seasons of DW. It allows the general reader to understand why certain concepts are used in this episode. Also, your example is flawed, as it's atypical. See Doomsday (Doctor Who) which is also FA and Planet of the Ood, Army of Ghosts, The Girl in the Fireplace and School Reunion (Doctor Who) which are GA and all have "Continuity"-sections. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was redundant the article - in the case of Girl in the Fireplace (which was the only episode GA/FA I didn't write), we talk about how it links to School Reunion and the Doctor's name, which can't fit in the plot section. We shouldn't include redundancy for redundancy's sake. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you acted too fast, but before reverting it, I like to hear some other comments on this. I think pointing out for example why Davros has a metallic hand is quite important. And while I agree, that things shouldn't be mentioned twice, those things that are not mentioned in the plot section should be left in there... --SoWhy ^Talk 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is also important, it was mentioned on Confidential. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned. "the only major change to the initial design is a weaponised robotic hand to replace the organic hand destroyed in Revelation of the Daleks. It's in the section "Davros". Sceptre ^(talk) 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool then. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The elements not mentioned in the Plot should be reinstated. — Edokter • Talk • 15:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, let's clarify the "for now" situation. It's there, some people think it shouldn't be, but the project allows continuity. So it stays while the discussion is ongoing. I hope we can agree to that. Now, to the point of the section itself. What is there now is not in the rest of the article, and would seem out of place elsewhere. It's all relevant, OR has been removed, and it's generally a decent section. Also, we should not be following Partners in Crime, we should be following the project guidelines. Which allow continuity. U-Mos (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, well put. I agree, what is relevant to understanding the connection between episodes and what is not mentioned elsewhere in the article should be suitable for a Continuity-section. --SoWhy ^Talk 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Partners in Crime should be treated as the Supreme Dalek, not like Caan. Partners in Crime is just a different way of organisation thats proved effective, that's all. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to suggest concensus is to have a basic continuity section. So were is it? All Grown Up! Defender 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been hidden. Yay! Could the person who hid the section please justify it? If not, this discussion does suggest that what is hidden in the article is good. U-Mos (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All that remains in the continuity section is noting little, inconsequential, mentions of missing characters and the notes about the missing planets. On first viewing, I didn't catch the mentions of Gwen's mother, Maria, Owen, or Toshiko. (and I still don't with the latter two) Gwen's phone call to Rhys is mentioned in the article already but the speed Luke mentioned Maria and Clyde suggested to me it was a throwaway line. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Owen and Tosh comes right at the end, as Gwen and Ianto prepare to face the Daleks. But I agree it's inconsequential. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Still relevant though. And of course, some of that plot-clutter could be wonderfully transferred to continuity. U-Mos (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because it shows the timeline and explains why two of the main character in Torchwood are not there. I never have an issue with too much info, too little is worse Toomanysidesofme (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When you start to add inconsequential information about the episode, you run a risk of straying from the subject. For this article, for example, and for many others, I added about half the written notes I had made from the supplementary production resources - Confidential, the commentary, and back issues of the Radio Times and Doctor Who Magazine. For example, I had written down a bit about Davison and McCoy not considering themselves Doctors until their respective Dalek stories. That isn't to say the plot summary is perfect - I would not've added the Mr Copper mention and the previous encounters factoid if DWM didn't say "you'll find out what happened to Mr Copper - he's been busy since Voyage" and DWC didn't talk about their previous encounters, respectively. It's a mixture of balance and eliminating redundancy. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I understand the need for a balance. I stand by my opinion that mentions of Owen and Tosh are not inconsequential, and should be in the continuity section. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical reviews

Oh another note, I think the critical review section way too long, do we need 7 8 different reviews on the episode? I think you have done a fabulous job btw Sceptre. ;) Toomanysidesofme (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The critics are one of the most important people in the television industry, becuase together they can dictate how long a series will run for. On a normal episode article, I tend to include about half a dozen reviews I find on Google News, with viewpoints in proportion. In the FAC for "Partners in Crime", I was encouraged to be a be a bit broader with the coverage of the reviews - for reviews that take up half a page in a newspaper, I'm personally glad I was able to shorten it to a paragraph each. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the first things I noticed about that section is the board range of views, well done! :) It's just compared to the rest of the article... just length. Maybe once the continuity section is put back in place it will look better in comparison. Also there is a lot of back to back pronoun usage in that section. Maybe changing a few of them will make it flow/sound better? Toomanysidesofme (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Oh, and a quick word count: lead: 280; plot: 448; production: 975; broadcast: 190; reception: 1122; total 3015. I personally like a 10/20/35/35 distribution for lead/plot/making/review. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel the reviews section, while very good, is far too long. Rather than using the different views as paragraph subjects, perhaps actual view points could be used? This would probably help cut it down while keeping the broad range seen currently. U-Mos (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is too long - the more out-of-universe material, the better. C.F. the production and review sections here, and you'll be surprised they're as long as each other. But, if a review needs to go, I think we should get rid of the Express & Star review because it adds little about the episode compared to the others: the Guardian, Stage, SyFy, and DS reviews are staples for new series articles, and I might work in some io9 reviews into some other episodes; the Independent review is needed for editorial neutrality. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Planets that should be mentioned

In the plot section, we've got a list of planets which are described to be missing. I'm wondering, for the sake of keeping the plot concise, which planets should be mentioned? I've got a number of possibilities:

1. Just Earth
2. The planets described to be lost in past episodes (Pyrovillia, Poosh, Adipose III) - my first choice.
3. All of the planets that have been featured in the Doctor Who television series (As above, and Callufrax and Clom [yes, I know Clom wasn't visited, but it is a part of the Slitheen continuity])
4. All of the planets that have been featured in Doctor Who fiction (As above, and Woman Wept)
5. All of the planets mentioned (As above, and Jahoo and Shallot Top)

Any other suggestions? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In the plot, planets describe to be lost in past episodes. Or we could not mention specifics in the plot make another section in continuity? Were we can do all of the planets mentioned and source from which episode/fiction Toomanysidesofme (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why the planets should be in the continuity section. As it is now, the plot is terrible simply because half of it is continuity. The plot should be concise, and this determenation to whittle down continuity to next to non-existence is not allowing that. (Also, Woman Wept is from the main show too - mentioned in Boom Town) U-Mos (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Woman Wept and Clom were iffy cases - neither featured, both mentioned. I put Clom in the second because it gets derided by the Slitheen on multiple occasions, while Woman Wept was a blink-and-you'll-miss-it mention. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you've said that, I'll bet Woman Wept turns out to be the subject of a full-season plot arc in season 5. -Jenny 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it - the OG community still want their royalties off the Moff for the windows in-joke ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where should the planets be mentioned?

This needs sorting out once and for all. Should the planets be mentioned in the plot, or in continuity? Simple choice. I say in continuity. U-Mos (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, less cluttered plot. We can just mention missing planets in plot and expand on what plants are missing in continuity. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis, because it's part of the plot of the episode and it stops people from having to jump between the sections to find information out. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity because it would be too much in plot and the names are important in connection with other episodes but not with this episode. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity is part of the plot - and this episode obviously leans on continuity a lot because of its crossover and grand-finale nature. It's better to put things in context than to seperate them - for example, Davros' metallic hand could go into the continuity, but it's served better in the production section along with talking about changes (or lack thereof) to the design. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the synopsis should summarise the plot in a brief manner, leaving all relevant details to other sections. It doesn't need to be bogged down with contextual points, when we have a section designed to take them. U-Mos (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Given when too much continuity is inserted into plot, it becomes too long and someone is going to cut it down along the way (which happened once or twice already). Just keep it in different section so the plot won't get bogged down. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any other show which has continuity sections in the episode articles - the continuity section standard for Doctor Who episodes only exists because the show is so old. Because the episode leans on continuity, it would be very hard to seperate the back-references from the plot. Besides, the plot is now short enough it doesn't violate our WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:WAF advisory, with or without the list of planets. I feel conciseness would be better followed in the synopsis: half a dozen words in the synopsis against three times as many in the continuity. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Synposis - I rather agree with Sceptre's arguments here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is no valid point. It does not matter if other episode articles do not have them. This project's articles do have them and had them for long now. I think the plot section should have everything from the episode and all things that "link" (if you so will) to other, prior episodes, shouldn't be listed there if not necessary to understand the plot. The Continuity section allows to split the article in parts, allowing people who do not desire such detail information to skip it easily while allowing those who are interested in the framework of the episode within the canon to learn more. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Which is why we put back-references that are not linked to the main plot in continuity sections - for example, the line "Yes I have [been to Rome], and before you ask, that fire had nothing to do with me. Well, a little bit." in "The Fires of Pompeii" is discussed in the continuity section because it's not linked to the main plot of the episode, but it is an explicit back-reference. The stolen planets are immensely important to the main plot, whether they are back-references or not, so they should be in the synopsis section. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The planets are. But which planets exactly and when they were mentioned to be missing should not be in there. That's extra information to be included in an extra section imho. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of seven words? There's no negative to listing the planets in the synopsis, and it reads better. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it reads better. I find it rather cumbersome in the synopsis section. (Actually, I find that whole sentence a bit oddly worded) U-Mos (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I vote for Continuity. Ophois (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is part of the episode's plot I'd say it belongs in the synopsis section. Matthew (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[Synopsis]I'd agree with that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Freeze article for 5 weeks

I suggest that this article and the next be locked from editing for the next 5 weeks and 6 weeks respectively. The SciFi channel won't air them until then, and the heavy editing will all start back up again then. So, why don't you just stop and wait to edit until everyone who has had a chance to see it can come here and flood the place all at once? - LA @ 20:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, very unwiki. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. Ophois (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pointless. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think that while Alena's suggestion would stabilize the articles until we have a good hindsight view of the events transpiring, using the SciFi Channel (a US focus for DW broadcasts) isn't a good reasoning, as this is the Wiki-en, not the wiki-US. The reason to opt for this is to cut down on the speculation, cruft and synthesis that tends to gather in new articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Would be against all principles. I understand that people in the US might not be happy reading stuff in advance, but noone forces them. When they were aired in the US then, those viewers are welcome to join in but I don't expect that much heavy editing because most information is in the article already. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Aleena wasn;t worried about spoilers. She was probably addressing all the inconsequential traffic doing busywork, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic before the ship is actually built. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in Britain the ship has been built so it's only fair that the article is open for editing. Jammy (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as the last episode hasn't aired there in the UK yet, the 'craft' isn't actually finished yet. Thus the analogy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, you basically got the gist. I am not worried about spoilers at all, just that we will have to go through all of this again in five weeks time when the general American audience gets it. I would also suggest a weekly archiving of the talk page and marking things as they are completed here. The next episode will clarify a lot of information that is currently in contention. So, everyone sit back, take a breather, watch the next episode, then come back and edit this one. If it isn't frozen for the 5 weeks, then, we will see all of this again and again and again. - LA @ 07:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to believe that. When it airs in the US, we'll have already known all the details for the next episode for 5 weeks then and the article will be, hopefully, as accurate as possible. I have no reason to believe that there will be much more discussion ensuing after the US airing. It didn't with the other episodes, I have them all on watchlist and there were no major edits or discussion on them since a week after their UK airing. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Penultimate?

For Arcayne, I am opening discussion on whether this episode is called the penultimate. Penultimate as defined by Merriam-Webster, next to last, which this episode is. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly is penultimate. You can't argue with what a word means. I think the issue is whether it should be mentioned. U-Mos (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, Arcayne is arguing that penultimate means climax -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Stolen_Earth&diff=223151604&oldid=223150424 Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well, maybe that's an American definition. It certainly means the second last here. U-Mos (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English. My understanding of the word is how it is actually supposed to be used in writing. Next to last, the definition, refers to the last being the denouement of the piece, with penultimate being the climax of the story. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? Just because you learned how the word is suppose to be used, doesn't mean that is how it is used in actuality. Wiki as with every other source uses it as next to last, including New York Times. Oh BBC uses the word preultimate in their press, http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk27/sat.shtml By the way, is the regeneration scene not a climax? Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines it as "next to last", and there is no harm in using colloquial English. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the BBC would use the word. They of course never make mistakes. And as to the question of the regeneration scene being the climax, I guess we will find out next week, shan't we? No need to crystal-ball it now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is the primary source. If they actually use the word "penultimate", then we can do the same, we can even cite it: "...the penultimate^[1] episode..."! With respect, you might have been to Oxford but it's actually OR if you claim that your understanding of the word is more correct than the way the BBC does. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the BBC never, ever makes spelling mistakes or uses the wrong word. Anyway, Sceptre fixed the problem by removing the word. Done and done. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

They might, they might. BUT, that's the important point, we do not judge if they do. BBC is a reliable source and we use what they say. If they made a mistake, it's not a problem of WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..."). --SoWhy ^Talk 20:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, Oxford defines it "last but one". One being Journey's End, making Stolen Earth last but one. — ORIGIN from Latin paene ‘almost’ + ultimus ‘last’.

Oxford also uses it in a sentence elsewhere 'serial comma n. a comma used after the penultimate item in a list of three or more items, before 'and' or 'or' (e.g. an Italian painter, sculptor, and architect)." Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that specific origin of the word, but I do see it as an origin. I'm pretty sure its meaning has widened to simply mean "second to last". U-Mos (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why are we still arguing this. The point of contention was altered. It is no longer such. Unless you get a hard-on particularly excited from simply arguing, please move on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The word is still present in the article. And no I do not get a 'hard-on', I find that offensive as a female. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded for the delicate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even having this discussion? Penultimate is a common English word, and now there are cries for sourcing it's meaning? Come on folks... There must be something more important to talk about. — Edokter • Talk • 00:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is "crying" for sourcing. I think a different word is called for. Penultimate is used differntly by different folk. The substitution, which you reverted, caused the stir. Maybe you could stop doing that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to start an edit war with Arcayne, please he did insist on a discussion rather than reverting. Even with citations, it doesn't seem to matter to him. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if you think i am all that interested in edit-warring, you might wish to reexamine those impressions. The word is uncommon, dramatic and prone to overuse, as we have seen here. I altered it int he text to avoid the problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncommon? Please... it's a common word used by the media all the time. Dramatic? Sure it's the second to last episode of one of the biggest storylines in the new series. Overuse? Once in this whole article. --Toomanysidesofme (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is your impression. It isn't used by the media "all the time"; in fact, I can count on the fingers of one hand when it has been used in the last three years. What is the dire issue with not using the word? We compromise here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but there shouldn't be anything to "compromise" about. You disagree with the use and a discussion was started, and five people disagreed with you. Conscensus is used on wikipedia, so I think we should take a vote on it. Ophois (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Google news "penultimate" and you get 3,564 results. Try to count that with one hand. You can see its use in the media pretty clearly. There is no need for a vote, no one agrees with Arcayne and he yet to give a source that disproves it's current usage. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not only interested in seeing a source which disproves its current usage, I'd also like to see a source which shows another usage. The meaning "last but one" (ie "second-to-last") goes back to the 17th century. Used for any series, but also music, grammar, days of the month, maths, cards. The earlier form "penultim" goes back to the 15th C and has the same meaning. (Etymology courtesy full OED.) Gwinva (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's just a word. Fine, include it. Geez, sometimes you folks seem to love to argue for arguments' sake. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the word "penultimate" may be used in this article--it is after all the penultimate episode. However the word has always struck me as sophomoric--in the sense that it's a word that impresses you when you first learn it but after a while it loses its charm. It's a perfectly good word,of course, but it's rather longer and fiddly than is necessary--a bit of as show off, really. "Second last" is perfectly good English and I think I prefer it. Another way of putting it is "Twelfth of thirteen episodes". As Arcayne has remarked, the word is "uncommon, dramatic and prone to overuse". --Jenny 11:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

'Second last' does not sound good to me but penultimate is better as it accuratly describes the episode. "Uncommon" i have seen this word lots of time in media, wikipedia and elsewhere, "prone to oversue" didnt you just say it was "uncommon"? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Jenny meant "second to last". As for the seeming contradiction betwixt uncommon and prone to overuse, when it is uncommonly used, it is used to death (like two or three times, as it initially was in this very article). I suspect that the word occurs a lot in comic books and marketing material, but not much outside of those realms and, as I said before, not entirely accurately. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Length

This is totally minor but I was looking over at Doctor Who wikiproject, more specifically the info box. I saw that in for the length, it was done, Length # episode, ## mins or for episode arc # of #, ## mins. In series four none of the episodes were done with # episode, but series one, two and three are. We should add it, right? Toomanysidesofme (talk • contribs) 01:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I think we should change it here. Looking at Utopia (Doctor Who) for example we see the "1 of 3 episodes" there as well. I will change it or try to at least^^ --SoWhy ^Talk 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I went back and edited the rest of S4 episodes with that format :) Toomanysidesofme (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work! --SoWhy ^Talk 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When exactly was it decided that this is part two of a three parter? Can anyone point me to a source please? 86.136.167.5 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Director Graeme Harper, DWM 397, page 54. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another image?

I feel like there should be another image in between those two quote boxes somewhere (Davros section, perhaps? With a pic of Davros). The other good/featured have an image within the article and of course a screencap in the infobox Toomanysidesofme (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I could create a comparison image of Wisher's Davros and Bleach's Davros. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be very cool. Go for it :) Toomanysidesofme (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job. Really allows those who are new to DW like me (who only know the new series) what legacy the original series has. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Series scoring

Surely there should be some way of making it clear that this is the forth series of the new/revived Doctor Who at the beginning. It may be obvious enough now and to those in the know, but for others, and for those who are not Whovians, it is not so clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceDragon64 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It says so right in the first line. — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity - yes or no?

Simply, this has to be decided. So this is a straw poll to try and reach a consensus on whether there should be a continuity section in this article. U-Mos (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

1. Useful, interesting and relevant points that prevent the synopsis from getting too cluttered. U-Mos (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Trivia is not bad; Wikipedia does discourage section of seperate trirvia items in list form, but never dicourages information of any kind. Continuity is defenitely not "just another trivia section". In here, it is part of the Plot section, and when written in proper prose, adds a lot to the article. I do agree that it is prone to cruft, but that is easily remedied, and ligitimate valuable informationh should not suffer from a total 'ban' of the Continuity section. — Edokter • Talk • 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. The whole show is based off of continuity, and thus relevant. May seem trivial now but later when the new series is old, it may just be lost. Plus really adds to the article. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
4. err... Aren't episode articles REQUIRED to halve a section relating it's importance to epiosdes other than itself? The continuity section is the est place for that - plus there are loads of references in this episode. They should be explained for the reader so that they can be understood. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

   Not required. Advised to if it can be done in a neutral, verifiable, and nonredundant manner. It can be done neutrally, but there's no citation for anything of the rest (for example, it's plausible Jack has John's vortex manipulator, and the part about the planets is redundant. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No continuity

1. The article contains many instances of relevant interesting information. The continuity section is too in-universe and goes into unnecessary excessive detail. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2. The article is in great shape as it is. The continuity is only of peripheral interest.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3. The hidden continuity section is the type of continuity section we should be avoiding - most of it is hinging on small irrelevant mentions other people didn't pick up. The type of continuity section we should be aiming for is like Army of Ghosts#Continuity, Doomsday (Doctor Who)#Legacy, Planet of the Ood#Continuity, where all of the continuity points in there share relevance and importance. Perhaps the only thing that passes both is the planets, and they're better in the synopsis with four words than in the continuity with fourty(-four). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Surely the whole point is to show things people may not have picked up on? U-Mos (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the section is to discuss links in the show's continuity in a verifiable and discriminate manner. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

4. I pretty much consider continuity sections to be trivia by another name. Just like trivia in other articles, it is better off being integrated into the rest of the article, where it is certainly of more use. That way, the casual user has a better chance of understanding the reference without being deluged by fancruft. Good work has been done here to do precisely that. The things that people may not have picked up on is a consideration that fans might have for non-fans; the article shouldn't be written from the pov of fans for other fans. The article has evolved past it, and should begin to serve as a format to the other episodes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

review

one of the critical reviews seems quite dodgy to me. I have not able to check the citation as it wont work for some reason and if it is vandlism no has reverted but i like to have confirmation on it as this was said:

"I loved all the silly plot devices and loopy plot twists. Code Red! ULTIMATE Code Red! MEGA ULTIMATE Code Red! Maximum Extermination! Don't activate Project Indigo! Oh, okay, fine, you can activate Project Indigo after all. But really, don't use the Häagen-Dazs Device! Just don't! Charlie Jane Anders, io9, "Russell T Davies is the gay Michael Bay"[32]"

if this was said i dont think thats the kind of review that should be included maybe the bit about the michael bay should be. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit of a silly and trivial review.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but I don't believe it should be there. U-Mos (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I put it in the quotebox because it was funny and reflected the general mood of the reviewers. However, io9 is a reliable review site, being aggregated by Google News and owned by Gawker Media. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But yeah, it is a bit silly. Swapped for the Stage review. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

750th episode

Should it be noted that this was the 750th episode of Doctor Who? And before anyone asks for a source, it's on the Doctor Who page AND the Doctor Who episodes page that there have been 750 episodes. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it? Then congrats to all involved with Doctor Who, remarkable. It seems to be worthy of note to me. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)