Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TreasuryTag (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 11 June 2007 (Edit war). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Doctor Who Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pre-Publicity

David Tennant reports "The Face of Boe isn't lying, but there isn't really another Time Lord kicking about. It's a bit more complication than that. Yeah, stay tuned, yeah. But also, the Face of Boe story isn't finished yet either" during an interview by Michael Parkinson on 5th May 2007. ,

Torchwood

• I think we should include some reference to the fact we will find out what happened to Jack at the end of Torchwood as we know there will have to be a partial explination at least. Walters1 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's a note from Russel T. Davies in the latest DWM saying that Jack will simply 'appear' in the TARDIS ('like a conquering hero') and Torchwood itself will not be heavily mentioned, if at all. How he got into the TARDIS itself may well be discussed, of course. Radagast 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

'Jack was last seen walking towards the (off-screen) TARDIS which disappeared at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days.' Yeah quick thing he didnt walk he just smiled and looked around.

This:

Continuity

• Captain Jack was last seen at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days looking off-screen while the familiar sounds of a TARDIS are heard in the background.

Should be removed, as there is no explination of how this relates to the continuity of the episode?

But it expains how he turned up in Cardiff, he was left on the gamestation at the end of parting of the ways.

Please start all responses with an indent (sentence above) and please sign all posts with four tildes. Just because one person hasn't signed their post, doesn't mean you all don't have to - Weebiloobil 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Short story "Utopia"

"Utopia is also the name of a short trips story featuring the Seventh Doctor." I think explanation or link to what short trips is would be useful. Otherwise it makes no sense. 220.237.81.74 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it also be worth mentioning in the Trivia section that Ace used to refer to the Seventh Doctor as (the) "Professor"?--Crushtor 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacobi in this ep?

What is our reason to believe that Derek Jacobi's character shows up in this episode as opposed to The Sound of Drums? The Daily Mirror story merely says "toward the end of the series", and the official site's story doesn't say anything about which story he's in (except that he's "caught in a desperate bid to save the human race"). Was he seen in filming for this episode or something? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see: it's in the latest DWM. My bad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia: I am NOT The Doctor

Tennant and Jacobi are not wearing the same outfit at all, and the Tennant scene is almost certainly from Human Nature/The Family of Blood, a story in which The Doctor believes he's someone else, and which is set in a period which matches the Doctor's outfit. Kelvingreen 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumours

The article, in the published rumours section, says this:
The Sun has reported that the Professor (Sir Derek Jacobi) is the Master in disguise, and that this will be revealed when he regenerates. The Sun has also reported that John Simm (who is in the succeeding two episodes) will be playing the Master.

Whilst this could very well be true, it should really be accompanied by a note stressing that this is only a rumour. The article makes it sound very much like this is true. Perhaps a note such as, 'However, this has not been verified by the production team. The Sun has been known to get such rumours wrong in the past.', would do? - Weebiloobil 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sun has made many false predictions about Doctor Who. I don't see why we even include their rumors. --Phoenix Hacker 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sun cannot be considered as a reliable publication. American contributors on DW pages might not understand the populist nature of British tabloids, which are generally derided as sensationalist drivel by anyone interested in serious research. The Sun will pedal rumours because they sell papers, not because they are true. Some inevitably are (can't be wrong all the time), but better to wait for a reliable publication such as Radio Times or one of the broadsheets.Gwinva 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rumors. Encyclopedias do not have "rumors" sections. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Citiation

"This episode also sees the return of a monster from the Patrick Troughton era. Many believe it to be the Macra." Says who? This needs citation (Black Dalek 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)).

As I have mentioned in the discussion for The Lazerus Experiment, the Macra did appear in Gridlock. The BBCi trailer apparently (I managed to miss it :( ) features a scene of a giant crab (what the Macra look like in Gridlock) next to what looks like the deaging device from The Lazerus Experiment. If it is the Macra, and the deaging device, the scene could feasibly be from this episode, as this episode is set in the same time as The Lazerus Experiment. (Whoops, maybe it's not. However, there are certain speculations about a Mr. Saxon, so I might be right after all). Nevertheless, it is just speculation - Weebiloobil 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see "many believe..." or "some say..." and its companion "while others..." in a Misplaced Pages article, please remove the silly thing in its entirety. Such vague weaseling is not appropriate to Misplaced Pages. Make the editor who inserted the claim source it properly. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rift

The doctor says that the rift has been active, does this not make reference to The last 2 Torchwoods of series 1

Actually the entire series. 82.32.48.236 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but mostly the last two episodes, in which the rift was especially active. (This is me straining not to insert massive speculation to Talk page based on the clip!) ;) -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Utopia image

I'll be removing the image again in a minute. The onus is on those seeking to include, not remove.

• There's no source for the image, stating that this actor appears in x episode only... so this image must be from x *isn't* good enough. Without a source it could just as well be from "Last of the Timelords" (not all casting is announced -- take for example Starbuck's death in BSG, nobody knew she would return in the finale).
• Images must contribute significantly to an article, that's policy, the image isn't even discussed... see WP:NFCC. An image and a caption isn't good enough when there's no plot/etc to compliment and provide critical commentary.

Unless a verifiable source is provided I will remove this image aggressively according to Misplaced Pages policy, those be the rules. Remember: the onus is yours, not mine (WP:V). Matthew 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is: this is the only episode that Sir Derek Jacobi appears in. Therefore, any picture of him, saying this episode's name or not, is from this episode. See? Logic overrides NOR. Protection has been requested of the pre-war (ie my) version, so I'll revert back to that. You're warring, I'm keeping the status quo.--Rambutan (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, Matthew's aggressive removal (his words not mine) of the image is against consensus, and arguably vandalism.--Rambutan (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on those seeking to include, not remove. I don't have to establish consensus... you do! Matthew 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have a source that this specific frame appears in this specific episode nor is there content to make it NFCC compliant. I'm enforcing policy, you're violating it. It appears the page has been protected -- but not on the version you want. Addendum: See Misplaced Pages:There is no common sense, your logic isn't good enough. Matthew 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re Matthew's first point, I think Rambutan establishes a very strong balance of probability; enough to be acceptable. Re Matthew's second point, this is more finely balanced. Is the image significantly illustrative of content in the article, or merely decorative? I think it's not a slam dunk, but since Derek Jacobi is the guest star for this episode, and since (at least at a very strong level of probability), the picture is illustrative of what he is portraying in this episode, I would let it through.

In any case, does it really matter? It's only a couple of weeks before the episode goes out, and then there will be no issue here. -- Jheald 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (responding to Matthew's request at WT:FAIR for external opinion).

It matters as Misplaced Pages takes copyright seriously -- if we had anything describing his character then it would likely be fair use. Matthew 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source is that that SirDJ is in that episode alone, and that is logically true. I've requested that the page be changed to "my version", since that was the pre-war one, and the fact that it was protected at the wrong version was due to when it was protected, not divine approval of your scheme.--Rambutan (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's... an essay... and it says

When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.

It's already agreed by every one except you that this is Jacobi's only appearance - if anyone can check the casting on DWM 380 for TSOD/LOTTL, that'd be good. Edit warring isn't in the interests of the pedia either. Will 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You and Rambutan agreeing isn't everybody. Matthew 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I count me, Sceptre and JHeald in support of the picture, and you against it. That's how consensus works - we don't need the entire population of Manchester to have a referendum.--Rambutan (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, consensus says that when protection is lifted - or before if we can persuade Majorly - the image should be replaced?--Rambutan (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use a picture that we know is in Utopia? Like Jack dangling from the TARDIS?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.173.62 (talk • contribs)

Good idea!--Rambutan (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean reinstated rather than replaced ... yes, that doesn't seem inappropriate to me. But let's see whether anybody else comes along. Jheald 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did mean reinstated - sorry!--Rambutan (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use the image with some critical commentary. Just a little bit on the story behind it. Who took it? What is it of? Other information. Cheers! —— Eagle101 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The image appears to be entirely lacking in commentary and importance to the article. Is the need to see the role severely impacting the article? It is not, from the looks of it. The image would seem to be decorative, something not allowed per the fair-use criteria.-M 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the finer details of the image are not discussed, I have marked the FUR as invalid, as it relied on the idea that the image "represents the plot of the episode", which is of course nonsense. As much as I'd like to see an episode resolving around Derek JAcobi holding a cup... 81.104.175.145 10:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected request

{{Editprotected}} Remove 'subscript text' below the tags, is ugly. Riana ⁂ 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And edit according to the consensus of the topic above.--Rambutan (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand either editprotected request. Also, this page was just protected; it could probably use a little cool-off period. If there are specific problems that can be easily address (e.g., typo fixes, etc.), please feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Just realised that ref 4 can be used to cover rene zagger's apperence in this ep. Could admin update it please. Also, you might want to change the companion format in the infobox to match prevous episodes. Thanks Willow177 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{edit protected}} Can we change the opening word Utopia to "Utopia" as it's an episode not as serial.~Zythe 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another request: The John Bell listed in the cast is a different one to John Bell (actor). Can someone please remove the link? --OZOO (vote saxon) 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy

In the Torchwood episode, the TARDIS appears in Jack's office, and in this episode, he has to run across the plaza to get onto it...what's the deal with this? Kuralyov 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple. We don't see it arriving, we only hear it. It's quite logical for Jack to hear it in the hub if it has materialised directly above him (ie in the plaza). He rushes outside in a great hurry. Where's the continuity problem there? Gwinva 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

- You don't only hear the TARDIS arriving, you also see things blowing around (which usually accompanies the TARDIS when it materializes, which means it was in close proximity to Jack, i.e. in the same room. Also, only seconds pass from when Jack leaves Gwen in his office to hearing the TARDIS materialize/dematerialize – not enough time for Jack to grab a bag, get out of the base, and run to the TARDIS.

The TARDIS landed ontop of the invisble lift seen in Torchwood so maybe the wind came down from there and blew everything about.

There's also the team's reaction to it, though- Gwen asks if they saw him, and they say no, so she instantly concludes "something's taken him, Jack's gone" rather than "Oh, he must've taken the lift, then". It does seem a little iffy, but it should probably stay out of the article, at the very least until Utopia has been aired. --77.99.30.226 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he really does have a Personal Teleportation Device.--OZOO (vote saxon) 11:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

New image

Could someone maybe grab an image from last night's trailer? Then all the hundreds of those arguing against consensus (Matthew) will be happy.--Rambutan (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

actor cites

{{editprotected}} Citations for all the actors appearing in this episode are found in DWM 383.

"A Doctor Who Special of Blue Peter will be shown on Wednesday 13th June 2007": cite for this is DWA 31

I don't understand this request. Could you please clarify? Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been lifted. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Can this be semi-protected instead of fully protected? Also, can someone italicise "Blue Peter"? -Trampikey 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It could probably be unprotected if users agreed to stop inserting NFCC violations. Matthew 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Most users agree that it is not a violation. It's consensus. What don't you understand?--Rambutan (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I've unprotected this article. While discussion continues regarding the inclusion of an image, no image should be added or removed from the article. I'm trusting that all editors will be able to exercise some self-control and use dialog rather than starting a new edit war. I want this article to be editable by everyone, and because this is an isolated issue with the page, I feel that everyone can keep discussion regarding the image on this talk page, while still preserving the ability to edit the page and its contents freely. If the disputed image is added or removed again, the page will most likely return to full protection. Please exercise some restraint. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, there are four editors who believe that the image is fine, and two who don't. Does this mean that general consensus has been reached? Alternatively, use an image from last night's trailer; I'll put one on now (that is, I'll upload it for comment here).--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So, how about File:Utopia - how nice!.jpg?--Rambutan (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a person in no way involved in the earlier dispute, I think the image would be fine. Being from last night's trailer, it has to be from "Utopia". Willow177 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. There ought to be at least one other person in agreement, I suppose. Anyone?--Rambutan (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to request that the image not be added, at least not without agreement among four or more editors. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is certainly from next weeks episodes, but it still has nothing to provide commentary on (see WP:NFCC - Significance). Really, I don't understand this desire to upload an image first -- it's only an image, yes? Matthew 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor weighing in for the first time on this: I do think the image of the character known (from at least two sources) to be in the episode, with a good, informative caption, certainly meets Fair Use and other requirements, as surely as any other image illustrating an already-aired episode. Still, if the unaired-and-therefore-suspect component of the argument is a major hurdle, that becomes moot in another six days. Having to wait those six days seems silly but survivable - and once the episode airs, we'll have material for an even better caption. I do think, though, that an image can be genuinely informative and illustrative (and thus allowable) before the air date, as long as the right conditions are met: 1) we know it's from the episode and 2) it clearly provides context and isn't merely decorative. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So, in agreement are: myself (1), Karen/Mavarin (2) and Willow177 (3). One more person is needed.--Rambutan (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about numbers. Consensus is about reasoning. Your reasoning is flawed - the use of the image in this article does not meet WP:NFCC, plain and simple. 81.104.175.145 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this must be rather complicated for you. Read the following bullet points, and perhaps you’ll understand:

• The NFCC doesn’t constitute a bright-line rule.
• Therefore, there can be disagreements about whether or not things meet it.
• An administrator has ruled, on this page, that if four users agree that it meets the guidelines, and fewer than four disagree, then it can be assumed to be acceptable.
• Three users - so far - agree that it meets the NFCC. Two disagree (you don't count, you're anonymous).
• Therefore, one more user will complete the required consensus.

Can you follow that?--Rambutan (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because you clearly don't understand what consensus is.

• The NFCC are a relatively strict definition - either something meets it, or it doesn't. There's no middle ground, just like a woman can't be "a little bit pregnant".
• There is no such ruling on this page. What was said is that the agreement of four editors is a necessary condition. Nobody said it would be a sufficient condition.
• One more user does not "complete the required consensus". Consensus is never about numbers. 81.104.175.145 10:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Four editors agree that the image is fair use. Sure, there's room for disagreement, but that's why we discuss it. Only two established editors think it isn't allowed, so we go with the flow. Please don't remove the image again; discuss it here, bearing in mind how nasty edit wars are, and the 3RR.--Rambutan (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an image from the last trailer woulod be fine in the article for the reasons above. -- Flutefluteflute 10:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll insert the image now.--Rambutan (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the picture - mainly because the quality is poor for its resolution. I also think that an image of the "Humans are coming!" guy or the chase would give way to a slightly more informative caption (I have screenshots of both, but I can't upload it as I'm at a public terminal), but I have no problems with it as of yet. Will 10:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Will, I uploaded it before I noticed your comment. I agree about the resolution, but I don't really have the time and energy to improve it! It'll do for a placeholder, at any rate. I'd be happy for your "Humans are coming" image, anyway: I just couldn't pause my video at a decent non-blurry point!--Rambutan (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I've requested semi-protection; Will, thanks for reverting: I'm close to 3RR!--Rambutan (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. ""David Tennant on Parkinson 05.05.2007 Part 2"". BBC. Retrieved 5 May. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

• Unassessed Doctor Who articles
• Unknown-importance Doctor Who articles