Talk:42 (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Plot?!

The plot summary for this is dreadfull. It gives an outline of the first ten (or thereabouts) minutes of action, then just stops. Not giving the rest of the plot at all. Can someone sort this out. I would do it myself but i don't have the time right now, so if anyone else could finish it it would be much appreciated.CDuck2 11:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This seriously still needs to be cleaned up! It's still not a complete summary and the writing is atrocious. If I get some time, I can work on it, but if someone else can do it sooner, this article really needs it. Rebochan 03:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What I don't get is, how come previous Doctor Who episode pages were completed so quickly? Going back, it only seemed to take about a day or two for the plot summary to be compeleted. I would add stuff but I didn't see the episode. Gammondog 10:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Added some tags to help get attention...not really sure they are the appropriate ones though...Gammondog 10:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we include a mention of the prologue on the bbc site? as far as i know there hasn't been a written prologue to any episode before. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/42-prologue.shtml)
Prologue is mentioned in the "Pre-broadcast publicity" section. -- MisterHand 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else noticed that the plot of 42 is similar to Planet of Evil? If so, why is that information deleted from this page? Proteus71 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it's original research.--Rambutan (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it must be original research for me to say that it's cloudy in Wichita today, at least until I consult a weather forecast. Proteus71 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we really have that speculation section?

Doesn't it contravene Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? --GracieLizzie 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank's Josiah! --GracieLizzie 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even notice your question, GracieLizzie — I just took the section out on principle as soon as I noticed it. Good that we're on the same page, though. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It's good to know that we have people dedicated to keeping the WHO pages nice and verifiable. Some of the other pages on Wikipedia are a complete mess! --GracieLizzie 13:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Some more details apparently in the Manchester Evening News: see [1]. This one is set on a spaceship... Does anyone have access to MEN to confirm? Morwen - Talk 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers in title

Is it really noteworthy that this is "the first time that numbers have been used as opposed to being spelt out (i.e. The Three Doctors) since Galaxy 4 (1965)"? My feeling is not. I'm not even certain about the "shortest title" note, but I can't see how indicating whether numbers in the title are spelled out or not is encyclopedic. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree but I think RTD actually made a point of the fact it was numbers and not words. Of course this could have been him just making sure the reporter (I think it was in DWM) wrote it down correctly, then they quoted him for some reason. --GracieLizzie 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I've read this comment - certainly, in the Radio Times article publicising the start of the new Dr Who season, RTD expressed his satisfaction at the idea that the listing for this episode would come up as "7: 42" - but that seems like a usual piece of RTD whimsy rather than anything particularly noteworthy about the fact that it's "42" rather than "Forty-two". I'd suggest deleting this note after the episode has aired... PaulHammond 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production block contradiction

There was info in this article that contradicted stuff in the List of Doctor Who serials article -- I commented out the offending portion, but if the info here was correct, please feel free to reinstate (and fix the other article instead). --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

How do we know that Image:42(Doctor Who).jpg is from this episode? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The woman in the BBCi preview who says "What are you" is standing in the same setting as Mr Welder here, but since we can identify the woman as being in this episode, we can assume that the welding-mask chap's sharing the stardom.--Rambutan (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'm a bit uncertain about this sort of reasoning (see my similar concerns at Talk:The Lazarus Experiment). It's great for fan discussions, and it's probably correct, but I think it's a bit OR-ish to say that two shots in industrial-type settings with pipes on the wall are necessarily from the same episode. (I'm playing devil's advocate here, but recall that Doctor Who has reused locations before, although generally not in the same series — for example, part of the Intensive Care ward in New Earth was the same location as the Nestene Lair from Rose.) If we've identified the actress saying "What are you?", it might be better to use an image of her until we've got more confirmation that Mr. Welder is her intended conversational partner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It is from the episode. I'm just watching it now, and its one of the characters (Evil Possessed Guy, Naturally) wearing a welding mask of some sort. --Fullforce 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost reference

Come on, we don't need to link the episode title with Lost. How can these shows be linked and why? Xdt (talk · contribs)

Yes, my guess is that if there is a link, it's to Douglas Adams, and the Lost connection is just a coincidence (although I'd bet Lost is itself referencing Adams, and it's unlikely that Who is referencing Lost referencing Adams!). But we shall see. Kelvingreen 22:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Similarly with 24. Is there any evidence that they are in any way connected at all? I mean, otherwise, if that was an acceptable reference to make, it could as easily be said "the title might be in connection somehow to the fact there are 24 hours in the day", or maybe "there were four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie; this may have somehow influenced the naming of this episode". So is there any evidence of a link? --86.148.122.128 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
There is a rumor that this episode will be in "real time" over 42 minutes following the opening 3 minute teaser, hence the episode name. Thus making it a play on 24. Though till the episode airs, i doubt it can be confirmed
Just because it's in real time doesn't make it a "play on 24", merely that they make use of a similar concept. There is a subtle, but distinct difference, and unless the writers come out and say "we did it in real time because it's a reference to 24, it can't be added.
Similarly, I see that another Lost reference has crept in. Yes, 42 is one of the numbers in Lost. And? Kelvingreen 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It also seems some people are still insistent that 24 has to be mentioned somewhere in the article, because of what can only currently be considered coincidence about the name. Currently, it says "Since the content of an episode of the new series is about 42 minutes, events in this episode may also be in real time. Doctor Who Magazine reported in the preview for this episode that 42 was chosen for the fact the episode is set in real time, and had little to do with 24." Couple of questions about that. 1. If it has "little to do with 24", why is it mentioned as an outside reference? 2. Did Doctor Who Magazine's article actually mention the series 24 (I don't read it): if so, in what context; if not, why is the point relevant to this episode? 3. The point itself asks for a citation. To go back to 2, if it is the case that the series 24 is mentioned in the magazine article, surely that is the citation; if it is not mentioned, how would it be possible to find a source for it's mention.
In a slightly different, but also slightly related point, 42 minutes isn't the only reference to the number 42 in the plot either, if the article is correct. Probably a "deliberate coincidence", but I'm not going to suggest anything until I've seen the episode. --86.143.247.217 22:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
The quote, from Chris Chibnall, is "I love 24. Season Five in particular was magnificent. It didn't really impact on 42 though."..."The moment it was mentioned that this would be a 42-minute real-time episode, Russell said 'That's the title: 42!'" It doesn't sound especially significant to me, but I suppose if we don't quote a definite statement it's not, people will keep adding it... Daibhid C 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The title "had little to do with the American series 24"? If you believe that, you'll believe anything. -88.110.39.243 08:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribute to Adams

I think it's relevant and worth adding that this episode is scheduled to air in the UK the day after the sixth anniversary of the death of Douglas Adams. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.90.154 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

It's relevant if it's deliberate. Otherwise it's coincidence. Kelvingreen 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly likely that a doctor who story references one of the most famous works of their former writers in both name and plot in an episode that's as close as they can get to the anniversary of his death by chance, don't you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.99.243 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
We know hardly anything about this episode at the moment. It's quite possible that the title is a reference to Adams, but without any confirmation, we can't really add it to the page. Similarly, until we know that the reason it's being broadcast when it is is as a tribute to Adams, we can't put that on the main page. Kelvingreen 13:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You want evidence? In the previews a the end of this saturday's episode of Doctor Who there was a VERY clear picture of him wearing the Arthur Dent dressing gown. Satisfied now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.73.88 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
TRAILER. FOR. REST. OF. SERIES. NOT. JUST. 42. GAHJGBJRHVRJV. --Quadratus 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
So - now that the episode has apparently been put back a week because of Eurovision, can we have a big OR paragraph on the deep significance of that fact (perhaps with a link to the Wikipedia article on Sod's Law)? PaulHammond 23:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The episode has not yet been broadcast and there is no reliable source connecting the title of the episode to Douglas Adams. I've removed a very large chunk of speculation which seeks to justify such a connection. Let's wait a couple of weeks or keep watching the magazines and websites for something authoritative. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Sanity prevails. Kelvingreen 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No evidence to say it's a tribute, bt someone at the BBC has noted the connection, at least. See BBC fact file. Gwinva 09:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real time?

I'm wondering, with the Doctor having 42 minutes to save the world or whatever, could this episode be shown in real time? U-Mos 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With a episode being 45 minutes, about a 45 seconds worth of titles and previews, that would require the countdown to begin just under two minutes into the episode. Since this 2 minutes could start before the titles. It's plausible that the episode could be shot in real time.--Nosxalc 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Very plausible. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Plausible enough to be added to the article without backup evidence? I think not. Kelvingreen 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it probably is. At least a "maybe" comment would be true.--Rambutan (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Backup evidence! See here, fifth paragraph --OZOO (vote saxon) 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't out and out say that it's a real-time episode, but it's good enough for me! :) Kelvingreen 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on dr who confidential russel mentions that this episode is the frst one be made in real time

[edit] Captain Jack

I (along with someone else it seems, as I got an edit conflict when I tried to the first time), removed the note about Captain Jack appearing in this episode... the preview at the end of today's episode showed footage from all the rest of the series, not just 42's, so it's impossible to confirm this. Besides I'm sure I heard somewhere Jack won't be back until Episode 11. Jez MM 18:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep, I removed the note about Jack's appearance here. It's highly unlikely, as the footage of Jack from the teaser appears to show him in Cardiff - at least, somewhere other than the spaceship in which the entirety of this episode is set (real-time, remember?) - 81.77.181.209 19:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the same trailer showed the scarecrows from Family of Blood, and surely no one thinks they're going to be in 42! I think it's safe to assume that Jack isn't in this episode, and I'd agree that it looks like Jack's in Cardiff in a couple of those shots. Kelvingreen 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: Jack is only in 11-13, and the Coming Soon trailer and the end of TLE was for the next 7 episodes and not just 42 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
I was the person who put that note in. I also thought he didn't appear until episode 11, but I didn't realise that the preview was for the whole season.--Andy mci 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simm

You've missed John Simm off the character list here. I don't for sure know which character he plays in 42, but im fairly sure he was signed up to the cast to play Mister Saxton (Harry) James Random

He is not in 42.

The trailer at the end of The Lazarus Experiment was for the rest of the series and not just this episode. 86.152.187.183 11:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francine

Where does the bit about Francine Jones appearing in this episode come from? --OZOO (vote saxon) 14:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a clip on Totally Doctor Who today, it looked like Martha was calling her on a phone (she only said one word in the clip).

Elvis was the word. 86.152.187.183 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

A trivia section was added. It contained:

  • This episode has the shortest Doctor Who episode title — at least in terms of the number of characters; it has three syllables, which makes Rose (the runner-up in number of characters) still the shortest in that regard. It is also only the second time that numerals have been used as opposed to numbers being spelt out (i.e. The Three Doctors), the first being the (1965) serial Galaxy 4, although An Unearthly Child is sometimes titled 100,000 BC.

This is admitted trivia, and Original research. The length of the title of a Doctor Who episode is of vanishingly small significance (perhaps less than a scene-by-scene count of the number of specks of dust on the Doctor's suit) So I've removed it (twice). If someone thinks it is significant then I recommend that they find a way of working it into the text at some point and explaining its significance. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:T22.jpg

This image seems to be from a trailer. There is no fair use rationale for its use and it will be deleted in six days if one is not written. Since we don't know the plot of the episode, and it hasn't been broadcast, I don't see how it can be said to illustrate the article in any meaningful way. I have removed it from the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

i have seen the trailer and it seems that it is indeed from this episode, he is using a suit similar to the one used in the satan pit last year and this seems to be the only episode set in an envoiroment that he can use it! --Secisalive! 17:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also it shows the Doctor's eyes glowing exactly as shown in the TDW trailer. Call it original research if you must but there's no denying that the picture is from this episode, and screengrabs have been placed on articles for unbroadcast episodes before, so I really don't see the problem.


Well I do see a problem. It isn't doubts about whether this image is from this episode. Please read my comments above to see what the problem actually is. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phone call

I'm removing this because it's unsourced and the episode has not yet been broadcast. We'll all know in a week or so, so I don't see any rush to add something not known for a fact to the article:

Continuity

--Tony Sidaway 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so we're going to assume the Doctor decides to leave in the TARDIS midaway through the adventure, pick her up, and then come back.

You're looking into this too much. We don't even know if the episode will be called 42 for sure yet, there might be a last-minute change, but we're putting that as fact. Based on your ideas we shouldn't have the article until it's been aired.

And we clearly see, in the Totally Doctor Who clip, Francine talking to Martha on a phone. It is in no way unsourced.

I understand why this continity point has been removed. It is poorly structured but the content alone has no purpose prior to the broadcast.--Nosxalc 14:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If a clip was shown on Totally Doctor Who, a reference to the clip should be included in the article. --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finding this article

Should we add a disambig link to the top of one of the other articles on the number 42? It took me a while to find this article by searching. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SkorponokX (talk • contribs).

I'll do that.--Rambutan (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I am still relatively new to editing so didn't have the confidence to do it myself. SkorponokX 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of a coincidence

The other day someone remarked on the similarities between the ending of The Lazarus Experiment and that of the latest Spider-Man film. I dismissed this as coincidence at the time.

Now we've got a space ship heading towards the sun and everybody getting a bit hot under the collar. A little like the recently released Danny Boyle film Sunshine, in fact. Still this could all be coincidence and I still haven't seen the actual episode, but those who like me have seen the film might like to keep your eyes open during the broadcast. --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The episode is very similar visually and thematically indeed. Just like the film, we have a crazy aggressor on a ship heading into the sun. Similar indeed, although I don't think its a direct copy. Its still very much Doctor Who. --Fullforce 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's very much like the storyline of the Impossible Planet/Satan Pit episodes. A craft/planet is falling into something that would destroy it at the will of a mysterious creature. In IP/SP, it's a Satan-like creature, in 42 it's a star. I get the feeling that Chris Chibnall just ripped off the previously mentioned two-part story, but just compressed it into a single episode. Don't both stories take place in the 42nd century/millennium? --D'Argent 19:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It probably was a bit of a rip off but Chris did it SO much better, and we dont know when The Impossible Planet/Satan Pit was set. DAVID CAT 21:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not precisely when it's set, but Phil Collinson said in the commentary it's meant to be in the same time period as Impossible/Pit, and that the celestial bodies mentioned in the three episodes, along with the visual design, are meant to establish this episode sharing a roughtly common environment. The inference I got from the commentary wasn't that 42 was "ripping off" the earlier episodes, but a move to establish continuity, in the same sense as the "New Earth Trilogy". CzechOut 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Danny Boyle obviously got the idea from the Red Dwarf episode Duct Soup 8-). Daibhid C 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, I see your point everyone: Chris Chibnall obviously ripped the idea off from somewhere. I mean, here we have the Doctor in deep space, stuck on a base/spaceship, effectively under seige. He must race against time to fix the problem and avoid the whole crew being killed -either directly or undirectly- by a vengeful alien force. All that running down corridors, death-defying clambering by the Doctor, using computers to open/shut gates, hurried wire- and machine-altering, time ticking down like a bomb... must have been copied from somewhere. You'd think a Doctor Who writer could come up with something original. Gwinva 06:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burn with me

A reference to the use of the sentence "Burn with me!" by Florence Finnegan at the end of Smith and Jones was placed under continuity, sourced to a "Fact File" on this episode on the BBC website [2].

However, the same fact file contains all kinds of meaningless coincidences, such as "42 is the age that Russell T Davies reached when Series 1 of Doctor Who began in 2005", "42 is not a Happy Prime number", and "42 minutes was the length of The Beatles' last live gig, performed on the roof of Apple HQ." The BBC is having a bit of a fun with the nerdish propensity to read meaning into casual coincidence which plagues fandom, and no evidence is provided to suggest that the phrase is anything other than a coincidence. I've removed it. Let's stick to known facts, and avoid speculation and possible red herrings. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this has more significance. The repetition of an obscure phrase within the series itself is overwhelmingly likely to be deliberate, especially when the phrase has no real meaning out of context. This is quite different to the the examples above where elements from the series are compared to elements outside the series. However, if others agree with Tony, fair enough. Tomsalinsky 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony, if you think those are far-fetched, please, for the love of God, don't go near Lost articles. There's random speculation based on the number 42 for you :) Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Belief is not verification. If it proves significant later on (emphasis on 'proves' there), add it then. We're not here to build theories. Digby Tantrum 07:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we ought to encourage people to think that any repetition is worth mentioning. As this hasn't even reached 'catchphrase' status (cf. 'I'm so, so sorry' or any of the 'reverse the polarity' variations), I can't see we have any reason to include it yet. Digby Tantrum 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take it out. Tomsalinsky 11:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What, no image?

It's been over six hours! Has nobody captured a picture yet? Upload it, provide a fair-use rationale, and plop it down in the article. A picture of Martha receiving that Tardis key would be peachy! --Tony Sidaway 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but I think your {{nrd}} tagging has put off uploaders... if no-ones uploaded one in the next eight hours, I'll add one myself. Sceptre 02:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tony, to be fair, you've been being a bit of a shark about images, and you've scared people off. You've changed all the old customs about having quote-captions, and this is where it's brought us.--Rambutan (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No apologies from me for enforcing the non free content guideline. --Tony Sidaway 07:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I never asked for one! I just explained that you were the cause of the lack of an image.--Rambutan (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's true that I had an earlier image, which was presented without any supporting context, deleted. This was because at the time little or nothing was known of the plot or the relevance of the image. --Tony Sidaway 07:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're missing my point. I'm not discussing the morals of free use, or questioning the policy-correctness of your action. I'm saying that your action - whether right or wrong, ethical or otherwise - caused the problem you complained about above.--Rambutan (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Nothing I did stopped, or could possibly have stopped, editors being able to upload images. --Tony Sidaway 08:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did: it put them off. They saw that someone called Tony kept removing images and making points about policy and copyright law, and they thought to themselves, "I don't want to get into trouble with anyone, so I won't bother". Sceptre agrees with me, above.--Rambutan (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If the idea of conforming to Wikipedia policy put them off, that's a good thing. We've got far too many non-free images that have been uploaded by people who can't be bothered to write a proper rationale. --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, so your overreactive, pointless deleting of images at random resulting in people being scared off from improving Wikipedia is good? Sure.
That's a bit of a distortion. The image deletions were completely and fully justified. See for instance the discussion under the heading "T22" on this page. There has been an advance on previous practice, however: this time the image was given a fair use rationale very quickly. This is good. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
'pointless' may have been overreacting, but most of them were overreacting to some extent.

Anyway, I've done it. I think the ship flying into the sun is a better and more important plot point than the TARDIS key. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

AvatarMN 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solaris, X-Men

I removed these because they aren't references, simply opinions expressed by an editor that some plot elements bear a resemblance to other stories:

  • The sun-infected people emit energy blasts from their eyes whenever they are open, and control their use as a weapon with a visor; the same as Cyclops of the X-Men.
  • As a story of humans in an orbiting ship and relating to a living star, this episode bears some resemblance to the novel Solaris (and films based on it), with its living planet.

To record a reference, we have to have some evidence that the plot element is deliberately modelled on a similar element in another story. A mere plot similarity isn't enough. --Tony Sidaway 07:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet it'd done all of the time in trivia sections of Doctor Who episode articles. It's fun to for viewers to share stuff like this. Real encyclopedias don't contain these kinds of pop culture articles, or trivia. Why, oh why do pedantic editors try to hold Wikipedia to the standards of real encyclopedias, when they participate in such articles in the first place? (Throws hands in the air.) -- AvatarMN 08:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, someone should really make a point of getting around to removing useless trivia and non-notable speculation on possible "co-incidences" from those articles also. i don't see how "lots of people do dumb things" is a good excuse for doing more dumb things. btw, Wikipedia *is* a real encyclopedia - it's just that it over-represents current popular culture because lots more people fancy writing articles about the Simpsons rather than good explanations of Quantum Mechanics. PaulHammond 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore! Minutes ago the article was getting robust and interesting, and in a flurry of destructive edits, it's been gutted. So many things that remain in the article are unsourced and original research. The entire summaries of all of the episodes are unsourced original research, as are the cast lists, and so on, and so on. God, people. When it comes to fannish articles like these, you can't be a scholar and pedant, it's so antithetic to the existence of these kinds of articles, and deadly to the morale of the people who use and contribute to them. -- AvatarMN 08:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There are such things as reference works/encyclopedias relating to various aspects of popular culture (eg. film, television, rock music etc), which do uphold standards not dissimilar to the principles on which Wikipedia is supposed to operate. If you feel discouraged about those standards, then I'm sorry, but it may be that this is just not your kind of thing. Digby Tantrum 09:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are such reference works, and they are not bound by needing to be sourced and not being able to contain original research. This is my point. That and that people constantly overlook it on certain content, and randomly enforce it on others (in the same articles, and sections in articles that are there at the time they made their edit) and cite these rules that they blatantly don't enforce evenly. Wikipedia's Doctor Who episode articles are habitually not held to those standards, and clearly the consensus shown by the fact that things that are in every one, like summaries, are by necessity not held to those standards or they couldn't exist. It's the same for probably thousands of such articles on Wikipedia. Is this something that actually needs to be written into Wikipedia's guidelines? Or does Wikipedia need to be purged of such articles, and alienate and lose most of its users? Because in these articles, those guidelines are not followed, and they couldn't exist if they were followed. -- AvatarMN 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your assertion that plot summaries necessarily constitute original research doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny: the way to assert that material is not OR is to present a reliable source; and a quick look at what constitutes an acceptable source tells me that the television program itself is a primary source. So, provided a summary carefully presents the occurrences on screen without adding further analysis that can't be backed up, there's no problem. Similarly, the broadcast episode provides us with a primary source for the cast list. And so on.
(Oh, and we're obviously thinking of different reference works if you think they're all unfettered of such obligations -- though the fact they tend to be written by experts in the field may have confused you somewhat.) Digby Tantrum 11:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The speculative and creative content of those books is supported by the author's expertise, and here at Wikipedia, they're supported by a consensus of the users. At one point last night, this episode's article was starting to look like the other episodes' articles (with the exception of there having been no summary written yet), and then a couple of people went through and decimated it, and then it didn't. It's beginning to recover and in a couple weeks, when those people aren't looking anymore, it will start resembling the other episodes' articles again, probably someone else will note the same things that others' noted only to have them removed, and without those hawks watching, hundreds of other users will see it and leave it. Look at the other episode articles, and at ones for other shows. They're not held to the standards you and Tony are talking about, these pages that wouldn't be in encyclopedias by nature follow guidelines that wouldn't be used by encylopedias. Clearly, the usership has spoken. -- AvatarMN 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone pretends all the articles are perfect. And, indeed, it may be that a number are due to be overhauled (if you want to suggest some which need immediate attention, I'm sure those of us with responsible approaches to forming a reference work can get cracking). But that's hardly a reason to sacrifice Wikipedia's ideals on the altar of fanboy recklessness. Digby Tantrum 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That goat's already been dismembered, man. And there are people standing around it and saying it's only a flesh wound. -- AvatarMN 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. Goats can be restored to life with the click of a mouse. Digby Tantrum 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
But it's not going to be. To do so would be to delete half of Wikipedia. -- AvatarMN 07:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I must say, I have to agree with AvatarMN.--Rambutan (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
These two instances are clearly just examples of where an editor has said "oh that looks similar to X-Men, and that looks similar to Solaris", without any good reason except a distant resemblance. To call that a reference is simply incorrect. That's why I removed them. If you look at Wikipedia's policies you'll see a lot of importance to Verifiability, Neutral point of view and No original research. There is no policy that says that artices don't have to conform to these policies if the unsourced speculative opinions they contain are interesting. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sci-fi is the genre that eats itself, there's a context in which we all note and comment on cross-polination of ideas. It's in our identity to love trivia and speculation. These articles would not exist if not for these things igniting our interest and passion, so why fight them? The articles are what they are, and it's good to allow these kinds of onctributions, for the overall health of the articles and the popularity of Wikipedia. People come to them for stuff like that, and they work on other bits that you approve of because their passion is being fed.
Anyway. Within the context of these articles, the editing guidelines clearly take a different form. It most certainly is original research for you to watch a TV show and write down what you see. It's creative, and creativity is original. The most you can hope for is a consensus that you correctly conveyed what you saw. The TV show is a reference, but you're doing something original and creative. You're not using scripts, or talking to the crew, or anything. A neutral point of view remains vital for the healt and usefulness of the articles, and I wouldn't argue against removing stuff that's like, offensive or the fandom is divided on its interperetation and what it means to the canon. As for verifiability, if you know "42" and you know Cyclops and Solaris you can most certainly verify that there are significant similiarties. -- AvatarMN 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If you really want to argue that summaries constitute original research, then you're arguing for their removal. If that's not a goal which interests you, it may be wise to let it rest. That said, perceived similarities between a film and an episode of a television show are most definitely in the eye of the perceiver; and unless someone can come up with a source to back up that that perception is anything other than coincidental, it is most definitely original research, and does not belong here. Digby Tantrum 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Or I'm arguing that the exceptions to these rules that are customarily given to these kind of articles need to be given to them or they would not exist. Maybe I'm arguing that these unwritten rules given to this type of articles need to be written so the pedants quit harassing the people who give these articles life. It needs to be decided whether keeping these pages that hugely increase the popularity of Wikipedia at whole, and therefor its value, is worth killing all these sort of articles and making Wikipedia into a much less used and enjoyed site than it is now. Yeah. -- AvatarMN 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If the argument is that A, B and C are bad, then the conclusion isn't that D should be bad -- the conclusion is that A, B and C should be dealt with (with extreme prejudice, if need be). No special exemptions for fan culture.
I'm sorry you feel people are being harassed. But they aren't; it's just that other people are trying to produce an encyclopedia. If you want a site that's run like a fansite, then there are plenty such places out there. Digby Tantrum 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
All of my notes have been removed, now. Including a referenced one about what Pentallia is, and continuity notes about the receipt by Martha of a superphone and a TARDIS key. These removals are completely indefensible, I'm being targeted. -- AvatarMN 07:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just taken a look at the page history. I have difficulty seeing why you thought this stuff was noteworthy in the first place. (And I think this is the point where I drop out of this discussion. Little of this feels as if we're trying to address valid concerns on your part.) Digby Tantrum 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought this stuff was noteworthy in the first place because I'm a long-time reader of the Doctor Who episode articles, and it's the kinds of notes I found in all of them, and enjoyed reading. Most people must have thought so, too, because they left them. At various points since the episode aired, this article has entertained me with the things that viewers spotted and shared. Those things aren't there now, and this article doesn't look like any of the others. I fear some of the notes aren't there because I pointed to them as examples of things that were left while my notes were removed, and for that I regret saying anything. I didn't know we couldn't talk about how and why original research and speculative notes are always in articles like this, despite the regs that work in an encyclopedia that doesn't have these kinds of articles. Forgive me for talking about such a significant issue, the conflict between editors over what is demonstrably a natural part of these type of articles is clearly not a valid concern. -- AvatarMN 15:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I can prove that Tony Sidaway is targeting me. During this discussion and while doing research on the Pentallia subject, a search allowed me to run into a typo on the article Ashitare (someone wrote "pental" instead of "penal"), and I fixed it. I'm familiar with Fushigi Yugi, and know this bit of character history so knew that it was a typo and what it was a typo for. Tony Sidaway followed my edits history to this article to see if there was an edit of mine he could revert. He didn't revert it, but he he made a format edit that left his footprint. -- AvatarMN 17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that I looked at your contribution history and tweaked an article that failed to identify an article as being about a fictional character in a manga. I also looked at some of your earlier edits of Doctor Who articles and altered or removed those that seemed to be speculative, poorly sourced, or simply unsourced. This is normal. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
...Seriously? Hello? All you other guys? Are you okay with the ethics of this? Please don't leave me out on a limb, I'm having a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment. This is outrageous, and more than a little depressing. -- AvatarMN 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Relax, I'm not stalking your edits. It's just that I noticed you espousing the idea that it's okay to put unsourced and speculative edits into articles, and thought it might be a good idea to check your earlier edits and remove any that looked to be contrary to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You just admitted that you stalked my edits, sir. You went so far as to check an article that's well out of your usual scope of editing work, and I'll wager you don't even know anything about Fushigi Yugi. Your edit to the page was good, I'm not saying that. But it's proof that you stalked my edits to get there, and I can't wait to hear what other users think of the ethicality of stalking another user's edits. -- AvatarMN 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No one's backed my ethtics concern. Amazing. Baffling. Well, if anyone gives a damn, the discussion's moved to my own talk page. -- AvatarMN 23:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability are official, encyclopedia-wide policies. This article is not an exception. Do not add any more original research to this article. Picaroon (Talk) 20:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article and other articles like it are not exceptions, except on the content that's habitually accepted by users and is excepted by them. How about the continuity section, for another section that's universal to the articles, full of original research, and accepted by the users? Some users thought up the simmilarities to plots and details of past episodes, and noted them. That's original research, no? -- AvatarMN 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am an actual credentialed scholar of popular culture, employed by a major research university. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that you can, in fact, be pedantic, precise, and sensible in writing a popular culture article. A good popular culture article does not contain idle fan speculation or a sort of free-association linkage. A good popular culture article contains documented discussion of the influences that went into the piece, interesting facts about its production, documented notes on its reception, and other such things. It is perfectly possible, and in fact important to be serious about popular culture. The Cyclops and Solaris edits are bad edits, not because they're original research, but because they're unimportant trivia that is not encyclopedic. Phil Sandifer 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then they're unimportant trivia that's not encyclopedic, and consistent with the Wikipedia articles on Doctor Who episodes. I guess these are traditionally "not good pop culture articles". Is a reference guide that's open to editing by anyone the type of place for credentialed scholars to sit in judgement of and exert control over? I was told earlier in this thread that maybe this wasn't the place for me. I think it's not the place for you (detailed pop culture articles of this sort, anyway), and if one really looks around the place and examines what it truly is, it's hard to disagree with me. -- AvatarMN 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The Doctor Who episodes are by far the weakest part of our coverage of Doctor Who, which is usually the exemplar for popular culture articles. Dalek is a stunning article in this regard, and is rightly a featured article for it. Yes, a lot of our popular culture coverage is poor. There are a lot of people who like to add useless trivia instead of well-sourced material of use to someone studying the subject. They, and you, should stop. Phil Sandifer 21:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there are very few people like you, who are fans of the genre and don't care about trivia and discourse that's for fun and enjoyment's sake. Few users and fans could divorce their enthusiasm for this sort of thing from their interest in working on Wikipedia articles on the subject at all, if they had to do it in such a dry fashion. What would be left might not be something even you'd enjoy, I fear. -- AvatarMN 21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. I love trivia and discourse for fun and enjoyment's sake. Not everything I love goes into Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Amen. Some of the articles on genre TV in Wikipedia are appaling, although they would be great on fansites (which I also read, being a fan - they are easy to find). Hobson 22:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Still, fun, enjoyment, interest, and passion are powerful reasons to use and edit Wikipedia articles of this type. I seriously doubt the articles could thrive without such motivations to be allowed, and therefor nurtured. When it comes to these articles, Wikipedia is certainly fan site-ish, encyclopedias don't contain the like of them. -- AvatarMN 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that Dalek was written by fans who enjoyed what they were doing. I think the problem is that many fans would rather put in a breadth of effort creating cursory coverage than a sustained effort to create something good. Phil Sandifer 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Where's the requirement for and definition of "goodness of articles" in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines? -- AvatarMN 22:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's implicit that we're all trying to build a high quality free encyclopedia. If you're not doing that, then you're disrupting the activities of those who are trying to do so. In short: don't push this. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What I'm pushing is that enjoyability is a definer of quality. And quality is not something that can be defined, the best you can hope for is a robust usership that reaches something of a consensus. Certain actions I see being taken hurt the usership, is contrary to consensus, and yeah; in my opinion, hurts quality. -- AvatarMN 05:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity - election day

Regarding the item:

  • Mr Saxon is referred to by a "Sinister Woman" who thanks Martha's mother on his behalf for her cooperation, and bags the mobile phone Mrs. Jones has used to receive her third call from her daughter. Martha's mother tells Martha during the last call that it is "election day", but Mrs. Jones pointedly refuses to tell the mysterious woman which candidate she has voted for

I can't work out what this has to do with continuity? -- Chuq (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Where else can it go? All the other Bad Wolf and Torchwood references are I believe in the respective articles' continuity sections (correct me if I'm wrong). Mr Saxon is the S3 story arc, so anything new about him is continuity.

The obvious place for it is in the plot summary, when that's finished. Digby Tantrum 13:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr Saxon has 'his' own wiki page. All references to him (and the election) are listed there. As he is mentioned it may be a good idea to at least mention his reocurance and the link to that page. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Flanagan

I removed this because it's unsourced:

If this was reported in a public source, please reinsert and disclose the source to conform to verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Reference

Is the title of this episode perhaps a reference to Hitchhikers Guide "Meaning to Life"?

Nah... It's an anagram of 24. Image:smile.gif --Edokter (Talk) 23:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Writer Chibnall acknowledges the Adams connection (as well as 24) with the title in Doctor Who Magazine, but the reference seems confined to the "playful" title. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You can NOT name something 42 without having everybody thing about 'The Answer'. The writers must have realised that. Though reference to 24 (real time episode) is obvious it does not dismiss the Douglas Adams reference.
The whole episode is litered with numbers. Not only the strange countdown time/numbers mentioned by the voice, also an answer to open the door has some wacky math reference "Happy Prime number". I supect there is something more to this.
To give it a very "twisted turn": 42 is the answer to what question? Well I suspect there is a question hidden in the numbers in this episode.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 09:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me. The theme tune to H2G2 is echoed several times in this episode. I wrote about that on the main page for this article, but some plonker decided that wasn't worth mentioning.59.15.61.147 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I removed it as unsourced. Now I've discussed it on my talk page apparently there was some confusion. The film tune was mentioned but apparently what was meant was the radio and TV series tune, the Eagles instrumental Journey of the Wizard. I listened carefully to the sound track of 42 and didn't hear that, sorry. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I know which snippets you mean, but claiming it's definitely an H2G2 allusion is something of a stretch based on the current lack of evidence. Digby Tantrum 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that this should be removed as unsourced whenever it is added, unless a source can be found. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's at least mentioned in an interview with the writer that the title appears to refer to the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, even if he didn't specifically intend it, we might as well state this (briefly) in the article, just to stop people like me from putting it in Cultural References... because it will keep happening otherwise! I didn't notice any musical cues, so I won't comment on that ;-) Dave-ros 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the title - what about: heroes stuck on a ship heading for the sun (Disaster Area's stunt ship), people being ejected from an airlock with no space suit? These are clear H2G2 references. I'm surprised no-one has picked up on them already. Andy j taylor 10:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can it be verified that either of these are deliberate references? Is there, for example, an interview with the episode's writer in which he indicates such a thing? Because, if not, we cannot treat them as cultural references; the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Mark H Wilkinson 11:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If they'd been blown out of the airlock and picked up safely before they died, preferably in a improbable spaceship, then that'd be evidence for it being a HHG reference. As would being teleported to safety by a clinically depressed robot before the ship hit the star... only the title refers, and even then it appears to be nothing but a coincidence. Maybe someone turned on the Infinite Improbability Drive :-P Dave-ros 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S.S. Pentallian

I cannot believe that my double-referenced note on what the S.S. Pentallian must have been named for was removed! "Original research presented as reference"? What the hell does that mean? I reasoned that the ship must be named after something, and no one knew what or had thought to mention it yet, so I went looking. Searches of Google, Yahoo, and Ask turned up exactly two and only two web sites with the word "pentallia" in them. They state the things I presented; that Pentallia was in Cyprus, and Cyprus was once a part of the British Commonwealth. It's the only thing the Pentallian could be named after, if there was another Pentallia it'd be mentioned somewhere on the web. When I added the note without references, it was removed. I wasn't believed that Pentallia existed, I guess. So I proved it, and that was considered original research. Would I have to prove that London existed, if I were to mention that fact in the "Rose" article? If I did prove it, would it be inadmissable "original research"? This is getting more bizzare by the minute. -- AvatarMN 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have actual cyberproof that the S.S. Pentallian in the episode was named after those things?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs).
Ever heard of a ship that wasn't named after something? Unless it were a made-up alien word, but it's a ship of humans. Ever heard of something that exists but is not mentioned anywhere on the web? Pentallia the region of Cyprus is the only one mentioned on the web, and just barely. -- AvatarMN 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This episode was set in the vastly distant future, for all we know the writer might have had it in the back of his mind that the ship was named after a Mr Pentallian who was president of the USA in the 30th century, or a Princess Pentallian of the Netherlands in the 25th century, or a champion racehorse in the 28th century, or any one of a million different things. Or maybe the writer just made the word up. There's no provable connection with an obscure place in Cyprus ChrisTheDude 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And the Sycorax may not be named after the character in Shakespeare's The Tempest, maybe it's named for the sacred boil on the ass of the Kaled patron saint of wanton intransigence. -- AvatarMN 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no must here. The writer could just have easily been making a reference to Revenge of the Cybermen. Digby Tantrum 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, if the writer was specifically intending that the ship be named after Pentallia, surely it would have been called the "S.S. Pentallia"......? ChrisTheDude 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely if it were named for the drive system in Revenge of the Cybermen, it would be named the S.S. Pentalium. -- AvatarMN 16:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if the ship were named after Pentallia, and we had the author's notes in front of us and he had chosen the name, it wouldn't belong in the article unless it had some significance to the production or the story. We don't, or shouldn't, just sling random facts into the article. --Tony Sidaway 09:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The new DWM (383, Family of Blood promotion on the cover) does actually say it's named for the system in Revenge of the Cybermen! So there you go.

[edit] Quiz

Digby Tantrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has twice replaced:

While the Doctor runs to Abi's aid, Martha and Riley have to override the system by answering pub quiz style questions set by the crew, years previously, after a night of drinking. The questions include a crew member's favourite colour, and the next in a series of what turn out to be happy prime numbers. To answer another question, Martha has to ring her mother to ask her to find out the answer to the question "Who had more number one hits, Elvis Presley or The Beatles?" and we find out that Martha's mum has her call tapped. Meanwhile, the Doctor finds the imprint of Abi and concludes that she was vaporized. He reasons that Korwin has been infected in some way by the sun, and can vaporize people by focusing his sight on them.

with:

While the Doctor runs to Abi's aid, Martha and Riley have to override the system by answering questions that only the crew know. On one question, Martha has to ring her mum to ask her to find out the answer to the question "Who had more hits, Elvis Presley or The Beatles?" and we find out that Martha's mum has her call tapped. Meanwhile, the Doctor finds the imprint of Abi and concludes that she was vaporized. He reasons that Korwin has been infected in some way by the sun, and can vaporize people by focusing his sight on them.

(I've highlighted the salient points in the former). His edit summaries were "Removed 'hilarious' edit and replaced it with previous version of the paragraph" and "Excised extraneous details" respectively. I find the former summery unhelpful and don't believe that the three items highlighted are extraneous; all are taken from dialogue in the episode, and give context. "Mother" is more appropriate, in an encyclopaedia, than "mum". Andy Mabbett 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the veracity of these details. However, with the possible exception of the Beatles/Elvis question, the exact details do nothing to move along the plot and therefore don't really belong in its summary -- at best, they're trivia. Moreover, making an analogy with pub quizzes (not exactly famous for asking 'What's your favourite colour?') adds more commentary than is strictly needed here. I thus replaced it with its previous, cleaner form.
A plot summary summarises: its purpose is not to describe the mise en scène, to bring out the colour of the narrative or to lumber the article with even further trivia. Digby Tantrum 16:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Though I will concede your point about 'mother' as opposed to 'mum'. Digby Tantrum 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the points highlighted are all significant, not trivial; though the "happy numbers" wording should be expanded to point out that it took the doctor to recognise the sequence. If you're not convinced, and since no other opinions have been expressed, I'd be happy to call for a third opinion. Andy Mabbett 11:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Aye, go on. If nothing else, I'll learn something about how the system works. Mark H Wilkinson 14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinister Woman/Miss Dexter

Somebody is continually changing, in the cast list, 'Sinister Woman' to read some variant of 'Sinister Woman (Miss Dexter)'. She is credited as 'Sinister Woman' there, so that is how she should be credited in the end. Please stop changing it.

[edit] Broadcast Date

Officially I know they have said that the broadcast date was changed later on due to the Eurovision song contest. But if it wasn't preplanned then how comes the trailer from the end of the Runaway Bride only shows clips up to the Lazarus Experiment, yet in the first 2 series they had clips from episodes later than halfway through. Its seems a huge coincidence that they'd get the exact right point to split the trailers at.--Hammard 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, one series they decided to show us more then the other, not much of a coinsedence at all.--Wiggstar69 14:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I still think its strange they'd get the exact right point. However, just doublechecked and actually the one for series 2 goes up 2 episode 6 as well, so ignore me--Hammard 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they didn't have any usable clips from 7-13 at that point?

[edit] Martha's Mobile

A user has added the following to the continuity section:

  • A symbol on Martha's enhanced mobile phone display matches the symbol on the laptop computer used by the Mysterious Woman. [3]

Do we have any good reasons to think this is significant?

I added that. I would hardly think it's just a coincidence, but agreed, there is nothing yet to suggest it is of significance. Could possibly add a caveat to the effect that "the significance of this connection is as of now unknown", if that would help. 67.183.3.173 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be better practice to excise this from the article and only introduce it at a point when it proves significant, assuming it ever does. Mark H Wilkinson 07:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough.67.183.3.173 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually - it's me again - the Doctor Who site at http://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk posits that the symbol is related to the "Archangel" that has been mentioned in connection with the final episodes of the series. Not anything concrete, by any means, but does this render mentioning the symbol kosher? 63.240.143.76 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All that verifies is that someone has speculated about the symbol. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; unless this were an article titled Fan Speculation About Series Three, or similar, it is not appropriate content. Mark H Wilkinson 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Accepted. 63.240.143.76 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is relevant as shown later in the series. I've put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13djb13 (talk • contribs)
Yes, quite right. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image being used.

There's an apparent disagreement over which image to use ([4], [5], [6] & [7]). Perhaps we should have a discussion over which would be the better choice for the article? Mark H Wilkinson 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the next stage. The editor and I have been having a user-talk discussion, and he wants both images. I know that we're only allowed one - but what policy is this under? I'm sure I've seen it recently. Anyway, I favour the one I was reverting to (surprise, surprise) since it sets the scene descriptively.--Rambutan (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any specific guideline which prohibits the use of two images in an article. However, if you have two images which effectively do the same job (ie. illustrate the plot), then we run into the following policy conflict:

3. (a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.

We only need one for the plot, really. So it boils down to getting a consensus over which is "better". Mark H Wilkinson 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if we could get free images we could use as many as we liked. For this kind of subject, though, we're stuck with minimal use of non-free images. My preference is Image:Doctor42.jpg, for what it's worth. It shows a recognisable character and a key visual effect. The other picture is also perfectly okay. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So perhaps for this episode page it should have both images, because the orginal image shows nothing of the effect of the alien on the crew members. The fact that the Doctor was infected is a striking turning point in the episode.--Brinstar 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't really make it clear in the above, but in my opinion more than one non-free picture is incompatible with "minimal use". We don't have to illustrate everything, and the one most appropriate picture will have to do. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My image is better, as it is more representative of the episode itself. It's the whole crux of the episode, not the "Doctor is dying" scene which was quickly resolved in 2 minutes. Will (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The episode is a whole lot more than ship in front of a star, the plot is more about the effect the sun is having on people, the possession, the sabotage. The image I uploaded is representing the real threat that occurs in the episode. I chose the Doctor's possession as it is one of the few occasions you get to see the eyes burning intensely, it isn't there just because the Doctor is in danger of dying.
The majority of these images used are the turning points, the climaxes of the episode. For example, [8] this image is used for the episode Utopia. The plot for Utopia is about the Professor and the last of the human race trying to escape. The revelation of the Master is the dramatic twist. The image used tells me nothing more than the return of a character, personally I think it fine for that page.
For the episode 42, I found the original image vague and uninteresting, which is why I changed it.--Brinstar 10:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be Image:Doctor42.jpg, as it's more descriptive of the episode. Personally I think Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg is really poor quality, the scene itself can't really enhance the page (big bright sun and a piece of black in the middle). Matthew 13:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section (straw poll)

Thus far Brinstar, Matthew and Tony Sidaway have stated a preference for the newer image (Image:Doctor42.jpg), and judging by the edit history, Sceptre is in favour of Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg. Do we have any further opinions on this? It'd be great if we could get this decidedly trivial issue over and done with. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan's in favour of the image change (see above) too. Will (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Quite right too. So that's 3 to 2 (assuming Rambutan hasn't changed his mind). --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, if I'm really on Wikibreak, I should abstain here. Trouble is, I'm in favor of the old one with the ship, because although it's less dramatic (due to not depicting a person directly), it is more representative of the episode as opposed to the last ten minutes of it. But that would tie up the straw poll. So, um, look, either is fine, really. But if I had to choose, it would be the one with the ship. Fading back into Wikibreakland now. --Karen | Talk | contribs 02:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I've yet to hear an argument that either image really helps the article that much. One shows a ship orbiting a Sun — how difficult is that to describe in words? The other is another David Tennant gurnfest, but his eyes are glowing. Actually, that's it, really: minimal use is minimal use. Ergo, no image. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If the ship image is to be kept, then somebody will need to take a more clearer image. The present one is just awful! Matthew 08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Image quality isn't an issue. People who insist an article ought to have an image need to be able to justify that it serves an educational purpose which can't be provided by the text. It's not about aesthetics. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regular contributor Someguy0830 has this[9] to say: "The ship seems more indicative of the situation. Flamy-eye Doc just doesn't illustrate it as well." --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the picture of the sun goes to List of Doctor Who planets (which has only a few pictures), and the glowing eye one be used instead.(Black Dalek 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)).

I favour Image:Doctor42.jpg, the image of the ship isn't clear enough, at first I thought the image wasn't in the episode. I have noticed a pattern where most of the article images seem to depict the villain/monster of the episode, 42 is tricky but either the Doctor with the glowing eyes or an image of the crew member with the welding mask burning someone would suffice for this page.--Nosxalc 11:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to resolve this, it's reached a total stalemate(Black Dalek 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

I make the poll count at 5 - 4 at the moment, majority in favour of (Image:Doctor42.jpg), correct me if I have made a mistake. Unless anyone has any objections, I think this straw poll should close and the image go back on the page.--Brinstar 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls, IIRC, need supermajority consensus like most discussions on Wikipedia. I suggest that we get a different third image on the page - for example, Martha in the escape pod flying from the ship. Will (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Polls aren't intrinsically binding in that sense; it's more a case of sampling the opinions of editors to determine whether there is something approaching consensus, or which can be directed towards such by discussion. As it stands, there's nothing from the discussion or the vote tally to suggest there's a consensus in favour of one image over the other. In which case, it's probably a good idea to negotiate an alternative solution. (Which, as I've said before, likely doesn't mean bung both images in the article and hope no-one objects.) --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, here's the four images I've captured from the episode which are of a good enough quality:
  • An updated version of the Sun (so the exhaust of the ship is visible, it's not a mass of black)
  • Two images of the Doctor's "It's alive" speech, one from the Doctor's POV, the other from the Sun's
  • The pre-episode screenshot of Corwin advancing on whatsherface.
Opinions? Will (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I love the idea of using one of the "It's alive" shots! If one of these includes both the Sun and the Doctor, then we have the best aspects of both of the previous images. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This arugment is just getting silly. I firmly belive the flame eyed doctor image is better, but uploading a entirely new image could possibly resolve this. I support option 4.(Black Dalek 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Starship Discovery?

Perhaps this is purely coincidental, but I couldn't help but think the writer of this episode might have - at least subconsciously - drawn on elements from an old edutainment game I played on the Amiga 500 called "Discovery". In addition to the profile of the ship depicted in 42 looking somewhat like the side-view map of the game (which I'm aware is a variation on a common design), the premise of the game - summed up in the final sentence of the game's synopsis, delivered by the traditional goofy synthesized voice - is "Pass security doors by answering questions". That is, the game will frequently block your progress with security doors that deliver a pop quiz in much the same fashion as the ones in this episode (though unlike the ones in this episode, you get as many tries as you need). A further note is that the game starts in the aft of the ship, with your goal on the main bridge (after you "Collect 12 fuel crystals" to "Repair the ship and win the game"). Of course, there are no masked monsters burning people to death, though that doesn't stop the alien animal specimens running amok from being a nuisance...

I'm aware that in the 90's-gen Tom Swift novels, the titular character had a security lock which posed music trivia questions...though note that the thing actually operated on a voiceprint lock and the trivia was just for show.--Tenka Muteki 04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hal Korwin vs Korwin McDonnell

There's been a minor dispute over a character's name, apparently due to the fact that Hal Korwin is referred to as Korwin McDonnell in the BBC prequel[10]. The edit I've performed reverts the character name to Hal Korwin, while adding a footnote to the effect he's named differently in this prologue. I've weighted things in this manner for two reasons:

  1. The project level MoS (see ) directs that the cast list takes its lead from the programme credits;
  2. The prologue is written by someone other than the episode author.

If someone has a neater way of handling this, I won't object. However, I will restate that we tend to give authority to the programme credits unless there's something to trump that (eg. a statement from RTD saying that they messed up the credits). --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to your local WHSmith and buy a copy of the DWM S3 Companion for 6.99, or just look at it in the shop since it's just one page. Go to page 79 and at the bottom it is stated that the credits are in error.

Alternatively, go to www.battlesintimeinvader.com and click on 'THE CARDS', then on human, then find the card named 'Korwin McDonnell' there, or go to the monster section and find the 'Sun-Possessed Korwin McDonnell' card.

Or, use common logic. Kath consistently refers to the character as 'Korwin' throughout the episode, as does Ashton, and why would somebody refer to their husband/friend by their last name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Devil's advocate here; Carla Espinosa calls her husband "Turk" more than she calls him "Chris(topher)". Different show entirely, but there's a prime example. Will (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current crediting of just 'Korwin' is a fair compromise, but as for 'The project level MoS (see ) directs that the cast list takes its lead from the programme credits' - Utopia (Doctor Who says Professor Yana whilst the credits say The Professor, The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords both say Toclafane voices whilst the credits say Sphere voices, The Family of Blood says The Doctor/Smith whilst the credits say The Doctor, and there's probably plenty of other examples of this, because it makes it more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)