Talk:The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Dr Who 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 Wikipedia. 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.
Portal:Doctor Who
 Doctor Who Portal

Contents

[edit] Jack Back?

Is it worth putting the detail in about Jack being in the Christmas Special this year? List_of_Doctor_Who_serials seems to think this is the case, but I'm yet to find any other source to confirm this? The_B 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the list article is referring to the special and series 3 at that point; not just the special. Percy Snoodle 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Also - should it be worth mentionning that this will proably 'resolve' the cliffhanger that is referred to in all discussions regarding the end of 'Doomsday' (aired in July)? Rose/Billie Piper is alleged to be involved in the special... Crescent 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Key words: "probably", "alleged". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff about Jack appearing in the Doctor Who list is probably outdated information (that went up directly after Series one, before we knew that Jack was going to be in Torchwood). As to the "cliffhanger", well, it wasn't really, was it? The only mystery is who the hell is this "Bride" and how did she get in the TARDIS? Obviously, that is what this Christmas special will resolve. PaulHammond 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the Bride came through the dimension rift the Doctor was using to talk to Rose.
I'm not presuming anything - seemed to me like the Bride was really there, whereas the Doctor was just an image in the alternative universe. I think the Bride is from this universe, and I don't think she's human - what ordinary human could just get into the TARDIS like that? But I'm not going to add any of my personal speculations to the article - I'll wait till Christmas to find out! PaulHammond 12:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suffix "(Doctor Who)" to article name?

According to Runaway Bride, a disambiguation page, there are two films and a several novels with this name. Does this episode "deserve" the unsuffixed name? --Billpg 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so; there's one movie called The Runaway Bride (most of the other stuff is called Runaway Bride). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be better moved to a "The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who)" titled page. The title seems common enough and I can see people going "Runaway Bride? I loved that mo-What the? Doctor what?"--HellCat86 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware this page was lacking the suffix--Warlorddagaz 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub?

is this article really a stub - there is, as of yet, little more information relating to this christmas special, so it seems silly to have the stub decleration maring its beutiful complexion!!!--Warlorddagaz 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's "little more information", then yes, it probably is a stub.

[edit] Ridiculous and unsourced speculation?

There seems to be a lot of this going around, maybe it would be better to wait until they actually shoot the episode before we try to guess what's going to happen in it--71.247.107.146 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right: speculation isn't allowed. But reports of published (eg. newspaper) reports and rumours are allowed, as long as it's clearly stated where they come from. If there's any unsourced drivel there, then feel free to remove it!--Keycard (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empty section

See here for an example of the empty section being used. It is a standard on Wikipedia, stupid I'll admit, but a standard nonetheless.--Keycard (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the wikipedia guideline or policy stating such? I've looked and I can't find it. -- MisterHand 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not policy, in so much as it's formatting, there's no reason to have a plot summary sit there blank until December--71.247.240.95 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to say. Why have an empty section that says "No information". That goes without saying by the fact that we don't have the section. -- MisterHand 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually never said that it's policy, I said that it's standard as my link shows. There is no point, you're right, but it's still the way things are done. That's how WP works: stupid people make stupid rules, but the bottom line is that everyone adheres to them since they're voted in democratically. I'm aware that there probably wasn't a vote for the plot sections, but it's convention. NB I've no idea what your comment about formatting has to do with anything.--Keycard (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because somebody's done it in another article doesn't make a "standard." I could find an example of an edit made where somebody blanked an article and replaced it with profanity, doesn't mean we can do it to all articles. -- MisterHand 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Keycard - I think you're confusing MisterHand, who has no idea about why you are annoyed with khaosworks, and doesn't care either. His interest appears to be in policing the use of copyrighted images on Wikipedia in general and trying to limit the abuse of "fair use" as an excuse to reproduce these images. PaulHammond 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
While I'll admit to being confused, in this particular case it's more to do with wondering why we need an empty section. -- MisterHand 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot is not fair use

If this screenshot is from another episode, it doesn't constitute fair use. See WP:FAIR for more information. -- MisterHand 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't find that bit on WP:FAIR, and it certainly doesn't seem logical. Please copy the relevant paragraph from the policy here. Thanks--Keycard (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not 100% clear, so I've asked for clarification. At the very least, however, we need to make sure that the article isn't misleading (this isn't a screenshot from the actual episode), so I've changed the caption. -- MisterHand 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect and all that, who gives a damn? I mean, that frame will almost certainly appear in the episode anyway. Also, being mislead on which episode a screenshot originates from is not very important. What I wish to know is, what gave you the opinion, 100% clear or otherwise, that fair use rules out using pictures in this circumstance?--Keycard (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is a pretty tricky thing, and for screenshots, they need to accompany an article discussing the actual work. For instance, the screenshot in this article could be used in a discussion of Doomsday without issue. But it wouldn't be fair use to use in an article on wedding gowns. What's unclear (to me anyways), is if it's fair use to use a screenshot from one episode of a series in an article about another episode. And in issues of international copyright law, it's usually best to be safe rather than sorry. -- MisterHand 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, could I just point out that Khaosworks hasn't yet authorised these changes anyway, and will no doubt do something completely different when he gets here, so it's scarecely worth bothering with. He'll give his permission if he think's it's right, or he'll change it so it fits with his opinions. Just leave it!--Keycard (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about? You've lost me here, what does Khaosworks have to do with fairuse policy?--71.247.240.95 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What does Khaosworks have to do with anything? He doesn't own these articles, and can't "authorize" anything. -- MisterHand 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was simply saying that Khaosworks usually changes everything, thinking that he owns the articles, and I can provide about 10 diffs to back this up (including this one, which took place over three edits. Completely changed).--Keycard (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the prize: just one edit. EDIT: oh, and another. Get my drift?--Keycard (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As usual, people can see if the edits actually are an improvement or not. I leave it for others to decide. --03:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khaosworks (talk • contribs).
  • I think you're confusing wikiprojects like this one, with U.S. copyright law guidelines, like this--71.247.240.95 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he's just wrong. For example, an image from the preview trailer for an episode would be OK, yet technically it was from the previous episode.--Keycard (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You might also want to quit using Lupin's script to revert non-vandalistic edits (as long as we're throwing around unrelated tangents)--71.247.240.95 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? For that matter, Misty have fun in sump. Unless you are clear, I can't know what you mean. Who is Lupin, what play's he in, what reversions of non-vandalistic edits have I done?--Keycard (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing screenshot per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use -- MisterHand 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think that all pictures are there merely to be ornamental, therefore it qualifies. However, I'm evidently wrong since MisterHand thinks I am.--Keycard (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome, of course, to join the discussion at WP:FAIR, maybe you can convince enough people. -- MisterHand 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the legal niceties of this one, but from past Dr Who wiki precedent, upcoming episodes have been illustrated with screenshots from other places before - for example, until there were publicity stills available, I think a screen shot of Captain Jack from The Empty Child appeared on the Torchwood article. If it's true that using screenshots from other episodes infringes copyright, well, the copyright we're infringing is BBC or BBC Worldwide, and really, if we're helping to publicise their upcoming episode, will they ask Wikipedia to take that particular picture down? Personally, I would feel relaxed about it unless and until someone from the BBC does say something, or until after Christmas, when someone will put up a screenshot from the actual episode... PaulHammond 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. However, nobody else does. They think that I should be heading over to the Loony-Assylum Wikipedia.--Keycard (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm - I've had a look at the WP:FAIR page, and there's this mention:

  1. Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

in a list of blanket exceptions that are usually fair use. Presume the screen-shot was of the Bride in the TARDIS - and since she didn't play any dramatic role in Doomsday except as the lead in to the Christmas special, I personally would say this was fair use, even if in general it isn't on to use screenshots from a different episode just because it's a cooler picture of a Dalek, say. PaulHammond 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of consensus over at Wikipedia Talk:Fair use, so if the image is added back in, I'm not going to fight it. -- MisterHand 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Kasey?

There's a (spoiler-ish) fan photo from recent Cardiff filming up at Outpost Gallifrey's News Page here, which clearly shows regular monster actor Paul Kasey. Should we add him to the cast section, and if so, how should we list him? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

I know that the citation for the continuity announcement looks weird, but I think that's the way it's supposed to be, according to APA style (as seen here). Template:Cite video is based on APA style, but doesn't allow for citation of a specific episode, so I did it manually. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of citation, I could add a citation with link to the Outpost Gallifrey News Page's filming reports and photos, but there's a problem: if I link to the regular news page, after a while the entry with the photos and filming reports will slide off the bottom of the page. But the RSS link to that segment alone (which is normally a good permanent link) currently has broken links to the photos: [1]. Hmmm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The individual newsitem link should stay the same, I think: http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php#newsitemEEVFlpuAZlRGoArFjn Angmering 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That link will do until the entry falls off of the news page; I suppose that when it becomes outdated we can link to the news page archive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deadly Assassin

Isn't this the first episode/serial since the Deadly Assassin to feature to Doctor without a companion? Unless you count the TV movie, in which case, it'd be the third adventure in Who history with no official companions.72.48.26.130 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(My opinion only, there's no citations for this). I would count the TVM as a "no companion" adventure. I would not count "The Runaway Bride" because Donna appears across multiple adventures and rides in the TARDIS...thus making her a companion. -- MisterHand 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Producer credit

Is there any evidence that Liggat is producing this? I was under the impression that she was producing one block of series three proper — taking responsibility around December time, if I recall the Love & Monsters MP3 commentary correctly. Angmering 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to change the credit to Collinson. If we hear otherwise it can be changed back easily enough, after all. Angmering 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas 07?

So, Army of Ghosts and Doomsday were both set in 2007, so does this mean that The Runaway Bride will be set Christmas 2007? And does this also mean that the 9th Doctor series was set in 2006?

The start of the 9th Doctor series was set in 2005, but when they returned in Aliens of London it was 2006, so short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but.

Fan consensus agrees with most of your points; we don't know which Christmas this one is set at - it may actually be 2006 again with the Doctor being careful not to interact with himself or Rose on the day. We'll have to see... Radagast 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we include...

something about the footage that was shown at the Doctor Who concert(i think). Here is a clip of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW_Fz1JiopM

[edit] Merging Love Don't Roam

I must object to an article being made simply for a song like this; yes, it was previewed and everything, but it was composed for, and will primarily be used in, this episode.

Should it somehow become a breakaway pop hit and result in the release of the single or something, then we can revisit the issue; but at this point it's best covered by the infor being here. Radagast 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Runaway_Bride_%28Doctor_Who%29_4676.html"