Talk:Blink (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.
Blink (Doctor Who) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 16, 2007


Contents

[edit] Confused

I'm confused. This is supposed to be a single story, but its preceded by Utopia which, according to the Season 3 page, is the concluder of a two part story.--Andy mci 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you are confused: Blink and Utopia are both single-episode stories, but they were filmed as part of the same block. This just means that they share a director and production staff — it doesn't (necessarily) have anything to do with the stories. Sometimes stories which use the same locations or characters will be filmed in the same block (for example, last year all the Cybermen stories were filmed in one block) but other times they have nothing in common (The End of the World and The Unquiet Dead were filmed in one block too). Oh, and Utopia will air after Blink, not before. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Blink is preceded by The Family of Blood, the second of a two-part story.77.99.107.117 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

How accurate is that plot description, where is the source or is just speculation from what was seen in the preview clip released today?--MrWez 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I think about it, where did the picture of the statue come from? What's happening??? I'm frightened and bewildered... - NP Chilla 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Freeview channel 302, or press the Red Button on BBC1, there's a fairly long trailer. It's also here.--Rambutan (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. :) I'm not frightened any more!! - NP Chilla 17:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that the image being identified with this episode is another bit of detective work based on known actors and settings? As I've said elsewhere, I'm wary of this. Of course, if there's a source I'm unaware of indicating that the statue, or people being turned to stone, are elements in this episode, we should cite it. (I haven't been following all the speculation and deductions on Outpost Gallifrey and similar places, so I might be behind the times.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture is possibly the Archangel, which is supposed to be in 12&13. I think we should remove the image until we have confirmation it's in this episode.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)
That's a bit literal, I think. I'd suspect that the "Archangel" refers to something other than a statue shaped like an angel. I just can't imagine that a small staue will have such an important role in the series, you know?Kelvingreen 12:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I still think it's from this episode, but it certainly shouldn't be in the article until it's confirmed.--Rambutan (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to the Archangel theory, because the look so like axons, which i think julie gardner or rtd said was a word in the season finale Willow177 21:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

why is this the only episode that doesnt have a plot?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney simpsons (talk • contribs)

Because it's the only episode that we don't know the plot for.--Rambutan (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The statue looks like the one on the front cover of The Stone Rose. And if it has something to do with Rose, it could possibly have a big role in the series plot. 77.99.107.117 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That's stupid. Point a) it's one of the novels, they don't do that sort of thing, b) Rose is NOT COMING BACK! --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Be nice LizzieHarrison 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To say point A after the whole of the last two episodes being based on a Doctor Who novel is silly, although I agree and think we'd know by now if the 'Rose' Theory was correct. On top of this its just a thoery (which is fine) although really you should leave it for the fan pages, not wikipedia.--Wiggstar69 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How did the Doctor get stuck in 1969 if the Weeping Angels were all looking at each other? He even says the one that got you got me as well. (72.88.210.196 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

He got stuck before the 2007-events of the episode took place. Wooster (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture from TLE trailer

Would it be OK to add the picture of the Doctor saying 'don't turn your back' to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Someone has added it, but there are problems. Please see the note on Image talk:Blink (Doctor Who).jpg. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just a generic picture of david tennat, it doesn't sum up the episode very well. If I remember correctly wasn't a very simlar picture removed and deleted? I second the request for a picture of the angels (Possibly the one that was here for a few weeks)(Black Dalek 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

No, it's a pic of him on the bad-quality TV screen as in the episode.--Rambutan (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Replaced. Will (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That new photo is great.(Black Dalek 11:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)).

I don't like the newest one (Larry's eyes). I think the one of Sally and the Angel was much better. --GracieLizzie 23:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ???????????

I'm confused about the part at the top of the article where it says "doctor-lite"...what exactly does that mean? Gammondog 15:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just an episode that is not as much based on the doctor, more of another character, like elton pope in Love and Monsters where the Doctor and rose only appeared near the end.Davie4264 19:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right. Thanks Gammondog 12:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locked?

Why is the article semi-locked? --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone is looking at it. Harry Mudd 03:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

I removed the synopsis section. We cannot repost BBC content word for word - it's copyvio. Phil Sandifer 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other detective shows

I removed the references to other detective shows for two reasons:

1. No citation or anything like that...sorry, but too close to original research.

2. They all buy into the same trope (think Spade & Archer in The Maltese Falcon). Blink is a self-aware episode but that doesn't mean that examples unrelated to the episode itself are necessary or add anything to the article.

I thought I'd give a fuller explanation for it here because it could cause argument. Ed zeppelin 20:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is surely something an encyclopaedic entry should cover? It would be easy for many people to watch that part of the program and be left confused or at least curious, surely this is EXACTLY what an encyclopaedia needs to be covering? Jasonfward 13:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - without proper references and citations such a point would still be in the realm of speculation and analysis, which is outside the remit of a fact-based encyclopaedia. The Rosemary & Thyme reference is explicit and deliberate enough to be cited as fact, but other shows are only similar by virtue of a name and I feel that that's a pretty tenuous reason to mention them as references. It was in the references section, bear in mind. Ed zeppelin 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
We can't say it's an explicit reference unless we can verify it properly. The BBC Fact File is a not wholly reliable list of info-bites varying from the trivial and incidental to occasionally worthwhile stuffl; it oughtn't be seen as a fount of all wisdom. Mark H Wilkinson 11:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
So I live in the UK, I know exactly who and what ITV is, and I have a good feel the program(s) the ITV comments is referencing. But what about people who watch this episode from outside the UK? How the heck are they supposed to understand this reference? Personally I would have hoped I could have turned to an encyclopaedic entry for the episode to explain it, I dont understand what appears to be slavish following of rules creating a hole/gap in something I think is so clearly deserving of explanation.Jasonfward 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparrow & Nightingale DVDs

I'm sure that I remember seeing a picture of their shop from a set report last year. Any clues?--Rambutan (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity

Something for this section, perhaps - Martha mentions she had to get work in a shop to support the Doctor. She also had to get a job in Human Nature/Family of Blood. Bit too trivial? I'll put it out there anyway. Oooh, also - they mention they've seen they've watched the moon landing four times? Worth mentioning? Don't think so, but again, best to bring it up. HornetMike 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm perhaps too trivial. Though my first thought on the "shop" line was "Heh, now she's a shop-girl like Rose!". --GracieLizzie 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Near the end of the episode, the TARDIS is shown being rocked by the Angels whenever the lights go out, however they should have had no problem rocking the TARDIS when the lights were on since no one was looking at them.

Maybe it is because we are seeing them ? We never see them actually move in the episode, only when they are stone. 209.222.54.175 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
They would have seen each other when the lights were on. --77.99.30.226 10:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Rose was worried she'd have to get a job in the episode with the Beast ~ Wiggstar69 09:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe beacause they could see each other with the light on?

[edit] Life on Mars reference?

In the Tv show, Life on Mars, the lead character is a policeman who ends up back in time through some unexplained reason. Same thing happens to a character in this episode,also a policeman. John Simm,from Life on Mars, appears in 2 episodes time. Surely this is a interesting reference to the show that should be added back in? Cm619 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that this is a deliberate reference on part of the writer? Mark H Wilkinson 10:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What I Did On My Christmas Holidays by Sally Sparrow

Has anyone read this short story? If so, can you provide a comparison section similar to the ones in Human Nature and The Family of Blood? Tehr 04:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is here Steven Moffat's short story --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 08:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptations

By at least some standards, Dalek was an adaptation of Jubilee as well... Phil Sandifer 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranoid Theories

Three things stick out like a sore thumb (at least to my paranoid brain). This is on the premise that there is some hidden theme or puzzle arcing the episodes.

1) Easter eggs: If the easter egg concept finds it's way into an episode (as opposed to 'just' on the DVD) this may be some hint to encourage us to find eastereggs IN episodes as well.
2) This is another episode 'featuring' a duo with reference to another (whodunnit-type)tv-series. I'm talking about 'Sparrow and nightingale'.
3) The Scooby Doo reference and the year they get stuck 1969. "It's a clue, Thelma!" How can it not be?

To be more clear: I suspect 'we' are being 'asked' to look for....something. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 07:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's more likely that Moffat merely had a think about a creepy modern concept to juxtapose with the haunted house, as well as a device to make it seem like the Doctor was in it more than Tennant was. Besides which, this isn't really the place to discuss this sort of thing. I recommend Outpost Gallifrey. Steffan Alun 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth wall

Doesn't this episode break the fourth wall? i mean, the angels never move when the audience is watching them, but no characters are. DAVID CAT 12:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume that there was a dust-mite or something watching them.--Rambutan (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been laughing my head off for the past 10 minutes over that comment....Gammondog 12:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No it did break the fourth wall in order to make the angels scarier.MrClaxson 08:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside references

I notice this section has been reduced to one entry, which isn't actually an outside reference at all, but a fandom injoke (if it's anything). If listing refs to other shows, books and current events has been judged un-encyclopedic, then so be it, but in that case the section shouldn't exist at all... Daibhid C 13:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

And also, unless sourced - e.g. another published reviewer mentioning them - they'd be original research. Out of interest, rather than any desire to to include them, other arguable allusions might be Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (who also got a message to duck, in the police station); The Shining (the book, which featured scary topiary animals that got closer when Danny wasn't looking at them; and maybe Life on Mars (the young policeman thrown back in time). Gordonofcartoon 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Really, I thought the whole thing smacked of Japanese horror flicks like "The Ring" and "one missed call," you know, where the seemingly innocuous technological device (the DVD easter egg) is the clue to a horrifying supernatural goings-on? (also, a bit of "Back to the Future" as far as people being told to deliver messages at exact times on exact dates in exact locations on behalf of a time traveler.) HooperX 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought of Back to the Future, too, particularly with the message to be delivered at an exact time and place. However this isn't at all an unusual device in time travel fiction. The writer obviously had a lot of fun with the genre. Fans, and younger readers, sometimes think that everything they see in one work of fiction must be an allusion to another work of fiction they have seen. As you read more (and writers generally do) you see that the same devices turn up over and over again. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I thought it was too similar, not only was the speech similar, also the actions of the characters - was similar to "Back to the Future". --211.28.212.240 08:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove reference to Love and Monsters?

The two stories have little in common, apart from the main characters being mostly absent. I also thought Love and Monsters was the worst ever, while this is one of the best. Votes at GEOS ([1]) indicate a similar feeling.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GwydionM (talk • contribs)

No, they were both deliberately "Doctor-lite". The production team remarked on it.--Rambutan (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It proves that "Doctor-lite" episodes CAN be good if they are written competently (i.e. anyone except Russell T Davies) DAVID CAT 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about that - if you read the review for Utopia on BBC Newsround's website, the reviewer has given it full marks, and the episode was written by Russell T Davies. But I agree that this episode was far better than Love and Monsters. Gammondog 12:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Utopia was an excellent episode; Russell's best in fact. I bet it was a fluke. DAVID CAT 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Hook in Doctor Who?

Was it really Doctor Hook's Ray Sawyer who played the Desk Sergeant? DavidFarmbrough 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It might have been, but I doubt it. I'll have to have a look at the episode again to check, but there are a couple of signs that may or may not answer your question. Does he look old? The Ray Sawyer from Dr Hook is about 70 years old. Was he wearing an eye patch, or did he look like he had a fake eye? Dr Hook's Sawyer wore an eye patch as he lost his eye in a car crash in 1967. StephenBuxton 23:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows

Regarding the "windows are the wrong size" comment, in this specific instance it should be enough to reference the original thread on Outpost Gallifrey. The reason: the quote is actually a direct reference to that discussion. Granted, generally message board discussion is not considered an authoritative source. This is kind of a strange case, though. Note also that, as an overt outside reference -- one that many people might not understand, and therefore seek to research -- it should be worth pointing out. --71.139.42.213 00:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's mentioned in a thread on Outpost Gallifrey doesn't mean the mention is a reference to that thread. -- MisterHand 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Moffat has now posted on Outpost Gallifrey confirming that the "windows" line was a reference to that 2004 discussion. I think that the cited quotation from the episode's author is sufficient. (And before you say "it's a forum, we can't know for certain that it's Steven Moffat" — Doctor Who fandom is a pretty small place. I met Steven Moffat when he was a guest at the Gallifrey One convention, run by Shaun Lyon, who also runs Outpost Gallifrey. Shaun has verified the identities of the Doctor Who notables on that forum. The poster is definitely him.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope he might this statement again elsewhere or maybe that it'll get onto the OG News page, I believe it ('cause I know that Moffat sometimes post on the OG forums), I am just worried it might still not pass WP:RS if someone tries to remove it. Some editors are sticklers for "proof". --GracieLizzie 14:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weddings

Re-watched the end this evening. One bit I'd missed, the Doctor states "I'm terrible at weddings, especially my own." That probably should be pointed out somewhere, shouldn't it? Much like the Doctor saying he was a "Dad once" in Fear Her, quite an important plot point. HornetMike 00:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although we don't know what, if anything, it means, and can't speculate. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You see that kind of thing a lot in Doctor Who. It's just Russell T Davies (and it would be Davies, he wouldn't let an episode writer put that into the programme gratuitously) doing what he enjoys most: teasing his fellow fans. This could turn out to be a throw-away like "half human" line in the old TV film, or it could be something significant.
Another interpretation (and don't put any of this into the article) is that he was making a typically elliptical reference to a wedding scene, which may have been cut from the Human Nature/Family of Blood story. Recall that Tennant did say that the Doctor would be getting married in the new series. "Yes. He gets married. Well, he doesn't not. Actually, it's quite difficult to answer that question truthfully", referring to a marriage to a character to be played by Jessica Hynes (nee Stevenson) [2] who we now know played Joan Redfern in Human Nature and The Family of Blood. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, we saw him mess up his wedding ages ago. Angmering 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Easter eggs

Um, I added a ref link to one of the easter eggs I found on the episode page, and now I feel guilty about it. Are we deliberately not mentioning these, or did no one else think of it? -- Karen | Talk | contribs 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I hadn't seen it!--Rambutan (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "They can never move again"

Quote from the page: "Therefore, because they are all being watched, they can never move again."

Can't they? What if someone turned off the lights, or, God forbid, the bulb went? Eh! Russell T didn't think of that one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.79.77 (talk • contribs)

They might have night vision DAVID CAT
I expect he was being poetic. Not that Russell T wrote the episode anyway. --77.99.30.226 09:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still all speculation, though, and thus should not be discussed on a talkpage.--Rambutan (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... you do mean "in the article, not "on a talkplage," right? Phil Sandifer 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia is totally serious and we cannot have things like speculation clogging up the talk pages. This is where we debate whether or not the Doctor having a bow and arrow was a reference to Robin Hood, not things like plot holes. HooperX 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite. See Template:Talkheader.--Rambutan (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I mean, yeah, the talk page isn't for discussing plot holes and other such speculation. But surely telling people they're not allowed to discuss it is a bit bitey, no? The discussion was hardly out of control... Phil Sandifer 05:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for that matter, you CAN kill stone, if you've got a sledgehammer, but that's neither here nor there... Dramatic license. HooperX 12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you cant kill stone, because stone is not alive DAVID CAT 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
HooperX, you made me laugh. Well done! This discussion is somewhat relevant to the article, however, as there have been a series of edits trying to get this right in the article itself, i.e., accurately reporting what's in the episode without sliding into speculation. In my last couple of passes on the synopsis I pretty much removed the whole "never" ("What, never?") claim, even though the characters said this was the case. Thus, no need to speculate whether the solution is indeed permanent. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stage Lights

When Sally and her freind make there way into the TARDIS, in one of the shots you can very clearly under the stage of the where the TARDIS is filmed where there are polls stage lights cloths and other stuff, should this be mentioned? - Wiggstar69 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Doctor just keeps all his clothes and stage lighting equipment under the floor? HooperX 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like it's just the lower levels of the TARDIS, and I'd be surprised that they missed such a muck-up if it isn't. Either way, we don't usually list goofs, so it should go on, say, IMDB if anywhere. --77.99.30.226 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] female director

It says this is the first since mark of the rani to be directed by a woman but I thourght evoloution of the Daleks was directed by a woman ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution had a female writer, but the director was male. StephenBuxton 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
sorry confused the two :} ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite the following

Please provide a citation to a reliable source for the following: "This episode contains a predestination paradox as well as an ontological paradox." Reads like original research to me. -- MisterHand 16:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add that note, but this reads like taking the OR concept too far, really. I mean, would you require a citation when observing that someone looking in something shiny and seeing themselves is a reflection? It is what it is, it's just putting a name to it. Without the video there was no transcript, with the transcript, no video...and so on. Paradox, as described in the articles. I don't see why that would require citation. Still, I think that note should be added to the main body alongside its examples, rather than as a trivia note --77.99.30.226 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It is an ontological paradox - textbook example (well, a variation on the time-machine thing). Will (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Then cite the textbook that uses it as an example. This particular episode of this particular show. Otherwise, it's original research. -- MisterHand 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
By textbook example, I mean that it's not actually in the textbook, but is regularly given as an example. Will (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
(ecx3)Quite, the elements of an O.P. are:
  • Information coming from nowhere.
  • Time travel.
  • Predestination paradox.
All those three are there, thus it's an O.P. We know that the P.P. is there, because Sally gives something to the Doctor after the event, from her POV, which is then used by the Doctor for the event. The source is the Wikipedia article.--Rambutan (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We can't source ourselves though. In the name of continuity notes, I think we can source the episode itself, but I'm not sure (as it's a primary source). Will (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The normal rule of thumb with fiction articles is that we can use the the artistic work as a source about facts such as plot points, casting, etc. But if we draw conclusions about what's on the screen, that's original research (unless we can find a reliable source that backs up the statement). -- MisterHand 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sally does get puzzled as to the paradox (and the Doctor explains it as being timey-wimey) Will (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We're not drawing conclusions: it's incontravertably a fact.--Rambutan (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent...then you should have no problem finding a reliable source backing it up! I'll restore the fact tag until then. -- MisterHand 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because it's a fact doesn't mean there's a source - Hand, IIRC, doesn't contain a source for "the hand has five fingers, one of which is a thumb". Will (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I was curious, so I just checked. It actually does have a source for that. But even if it didn't, as a verifiable fact it would be easy to produce one. -- MisterHand 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I was talking out of my arse on that once. I know we shouldn't cite a primary source on this, and that I've already said it, but the episode does show and explain the ontological paradox. Will (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Describing the events as a predestination paradox is NOT original research, anymore than describing Doctor Who as science fiction, or whatever. It is a descriptive term of a plot device, not an interpretation. And it certainly doesn't fail any of the following criteria from Wikipedia:No original research:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

I think may be at first glance that the statement appears an OR judgement because it is listed on its own, as a fact (which makes people ask 'Why is that a fact?'). If the plot section was written in an out-of-universe style (as it should be according to WP:WAF), then it would be referenced by the primary source. eg. The episode sets up a predestination paradox when Sally's experiences and interaction with the Doctor are determined by the account of them she gives him later... or whatever. Gwinva 08:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A predestination paradox is one in which a person (or object, or information), having travelled back in time, becomes responsible for causing the events which lead to their travelling back in time in the first place. That arguably doesn't occur in this episode. I would argue that some kind of ontological paradox does occur; but my arguing so doesn't verify it. Mark H Wilkinson 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it not occur?--Rambutan (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this expresses it better?--Rambutan (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
For starters, Doctor Who's in-universe continuity explicitly denies the implications of the Novikov self-consistency principle on a number of occasions, so it wouldn't be a natural fit (people can fart around with the time line). The key part of a predestination paradox is that the displacement in time is vital to the displacement in time; and arguing the vitality of the various story elements in terms of cause and effect (and in-universe continuity) should be enough to keep a suitably lively bunch of people in a flame war healthy debate for some time. Ergo, we shouldn't be too quick to assert a particular interpretation of the plot as an inarguable analysis of said plot. Mark H Wilkinson 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Continuity" section

I have tagged this section as original research for a second time, since it was removed the first time. If a secondary source has made these observations please cite it, otherwise it should be removed. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The items aren't conclusions based on observations, they are actual events from the listed shows. Please explain which items you feel are original research. --Ckatzchatspy 08:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. To insist that we can't state something happened in an episode unless someone else said it happened is basically to invalidate all use of primary sources, which are (and arguably must be) the basis of virtually all articles involving fiction. The continuity section as it stands makes no claims, contains no speculation and draws no conclusions. Those would require secondary sources. Stating what happened on screen in an episode does not. At most, it could benefit from inline cites of the episodes themselves, but really I think the episode title covers that. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 08:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the tag, pending clarification of this which makes little sense - When Sally catches up with the Doctor and Martha, they are carrying a bow and arrows. Martha mentions a "migration", while the Doctor refers a a crisis involving "four things and a lizard". One Night In Hackney303 09:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right; that is uninteresting, seems to have no relevance and isn't referenced by any other article. I'll remove that, and the OR tag. At best, it's trivia. Gwinva 09:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It should be clarified, however, that chronicling events which occur in the show does not constitute "original research" if there is no attempt at interpretation. The {{originalresearch}} tag should not be applied for such information - there are other, more appropriate ones, such as {{trivia}}. --Ckatzchatspy 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to revision 138021429 dated 2007-06-13 23:48:27 by Pikawil using popups

Why? the previous edit seemed good to me. Jasonfward 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Since no reason was given, and the edit in question wasn't vandalism, I'm going to revert it back. -- MisterHand 13:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why an ontological paradox?

I don't see how Sally Sparrow passing the completed transcript to the Doctor constitutes an ontological paradox. We know where the transcript came from originally - Larry wrote it, and then Sally gave it to the Doctor, who recorded his half of the lines. We have no evidence that the half of the transcript Larry used was printed on the same sheets of paper Sally gave to the Doctor. Indeed, it would be really weird if that were the case (what did the Doctor do, rub out Sally's half?) All we know is that the Doctor used the 2007 transcript to make the video, and nothing about what became of the (complete) transcript later - perhaps the Doctor kept it, destroyed it or disposed of it. So, we simply have a predestination paradox, except for the paradoxical cyclical passing on of information (but that is no problem, since information does not "age" in a loop). --Toredid 17:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, it seemed obvious to me the Dr had the full transcript, otherwise how did he know how long he had to wait between his lines and hers. Jasonfward 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Doctor did have the full transcript (given to him by Sally at the end of the episode). What I'm trying to point out here is that he didn't pass it back to Sally. Therefore, the transcript doesn't take part in a temporal loop; what happens is that the transcript is used to record the video from which the transcript itself was extracted (predestination paradox). --Toredid 19:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Rambutan said up the page:
  • Information coming from nowhere.
  • Time travel.
  • Predestination paradox.
Hence why, in the rewrite, I wrote ontological paradox (I'm not really sure which is which). Will (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is that nobody is responsible for creating (writing) the Doctor's dialogue. He gets it from a transcript given to him by someone who copied it down from a recording of the Doctor reading the dialogue out; at no point did anyone author that text. Hence, the existence of that information is is paradoxical; the issue of what it's written on is largely irrelevant. Mark H Wilkinson 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there is debate on this issue, I'm removing the sentence until somebody can cough up a reliable source one way or the other. -- MisterHand 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note - our article on ontological paradoxes says:

An ontological paradox is a paradox of time travel that questions the existence and creation of information that travels in time.

While I know we shouldn't source ourselves, the episode does indeed question where the information comes from - the Doctor reads out the transcript in 1969, which Larry transcribes. Larry gives this to Sally, who gives it to the Doctor, who reads it out in 1969, ad infinitum. Will (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the definition of ontological paradox includes information traveling in circles, I guess that, indeed, an ontological paradox occurs in this episode. I was under the (mistaken) impression that an ontological paradox occurs when material objects (or rather, macroscopic objects that can age) travel in temporal loops. Let me just point out that information loops, while paradoxical, can at least be consistent, whereas material objects trapped in temporal loops are both paradoxical and problematic, as their age at any point of the loop is infinite. --Toredid 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

After skimming through the article, I've listed it on WP:GAN - I know about the list style of half of the article, but it tends to flow and read better in a list comparable to continuous prose (if the reviewer disagrees - fair enough). Will (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Why not?

Modified my original post to simply describe the facts and mention other facts already in Wikipedia, so no longer original research, at least not anymore so than a usual synopsis. The post now reads:

"Though the Doctor has in previous incarnations met other incarnations of himself, (The Two Doctors, The Three Doctors, and The Five Doctors) one of which (the Second Doctor) was active in the UK in 1969 , he did not do so this time."

Now, my question (which I suppose is OR): Why not? Vincent 12:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a problem with your assertion that the Second Doctor was active in 1969: none of his stories are explicitly set in 1969; indeed, of the ones broadcast in that year, the only one set on Earth is The Seeds of Death, and that's on 21st century Earth. As it stands, I think we have to lose your contribution. Sorry. Mark H Wilkinson 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of evidence. The clothes worn by many of his assistants and other people the Doctor meets are contemporary to the filming of the episodes, unless the episode explicitly takes place, uuhhh I mean takes time (??), in a different period. I've never seen any 2D episode, but the Jon Pertwee episodes I saw took place (drat, I mean "took time") in the early 1970s. Only the 70s could have produced Sarah Jane Smith's wardrobe. So... either we admit the writers messed up, or there's a deeper reason why he could not interact with other regenerates. Or both more likely. It's happened before: Arthur Conan Doyle really messed up a lot of details in his Sherlock Holmes stories and explaining them provided no end of work for people seeking admission to the Baker Street Irregulars fan club.
BTW, feel free to rewrite the bit to remove OR (though I think I've done that) but please don't just remove it. There is a "continuity gap" or a plot hole and there's nothing wrong with exposing it. Vincent 13:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The bit you've now put back into the article is now original research because you're speculating, and you've expressed it in terms of weasel words ("very possibly active in the UK in 1969"). Moreover, you've added irrelevant material on Pertwee's Doctor which can't be sourced properly because of the contradictory nature of that era's dating. Is this meant to be an improvement on your original addition to the article?
All we can actually say here is that the tenth Doctor didn't meet another of his incarnations during part of a year for which there are no sources to say any of those other incarnations spent time. Not so much a plot hole as a non-statement. Mark H Wilkinson 13:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd want to read other opinions before I deferred to yours. What I added is no more original research than to describe the plot after watching the episode... As for the weasel words charge, not at all, and I'd like you to apologize for that bit. I substantially reworded the paragraph and I removed speculation while adding links to instances of the Doctor having met his other selves. Vincent 11:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you know he didn't meet an earlier version of himself? The story was told primarily from Sally's perspective, and as such, much could have happened to the Doctor that was not shown during the episode itself. I'm not arguing that he did hook up with the younger Doctor 2 - only that we can't say that he didn't.Dr Faustus AU 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

If you want to bring any Doctor Who episode article to scratch really, you can't have a copyrighted "synopsis", when a brief plot description should be offered in the lead which summarises everything. The information is also written in listy form. Please have a look at GA or FA TV episode articles first. Alientraveller 17:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the synopsis ought to be changed, but the plot summary is in line with the MoS. NB: I didn't nominate the article.--Rambutan (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OG "free registration required"

This comment implies that the place is fully accessible to anyone. It isn't - those who don't have an ISP-provided email address and therefore rely entirely on the likes of Gmail/Yahoo! are stuffed as OG refuses to accept such people. 86.132.141.168 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "Outpost Gallifrey?" I've tried applying to this using a gmail account to see if it will be accepted. But I don't think posts on that forum count as a reliable source, really, in any case. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
In this particular case, to quote the writer of the episode about the episode, it can be considered a reliable source. -- MisterHand 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit iffy. Outpost Gallifrey is a forum site, and the assumption that this fellow is the writer, although probably safe, has to be made. We shouldn't be in the business of evaluating primary sources like this. Since both Outpost Gallifrey references are to support trivia, I'm inclined to say "let's get rid of them." --Tony Sidaway 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I use a Gmail address with them, no problem. Anyway, I think it's the news page that we're referring to as the valid source, or forum postings by writers who we definitely know about (ie Steven Moffat's account is called Steven Moffat, and we know that for a fact).--Rambutan (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Saying that a person on an account called Steven Moffatt is Steven Moffatt may be reasonably safe, but it's an act of evaluation. As you've remarked yourself, you can use a gmail account with that site. Once my account is accepted, what's to stop me changing the display name of the account to Sophie Aldred or Christopher Bidmead? You'd probably be able to tell that I wasn't who my account said I was, but this highlights the fact that determining identity on a forum like that does take an act of judgement, whereas we can assume that words attributed to Steven Moffat in Doctor Who magazine, a daily newspaper, or a BBC website or the Radio Times have been verified by a third party, and thus constitute a secondary source. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Moffat has acknowledged that it's him, at fan conventions and such. I don't know at what lengths we need to go to to "prove" that he's one and the same. Similar to celebrity blogs and such. -- MisterHand 16:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotey-wotey?

I only just noticed that we don't use quotey captions any more (yes, I'm very slow, sorry). Why is this? I've had a little hunt around, but I can't seem to find the reasoning behind this decision anywhere. --saxsux 08:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's to do with the manual of style, but I'm not sure. Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) would be the one to ask.--Rambutan (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It has to do with the justification for using non-free images - they have to have a fair use rationale. Part of the rationale is that pictures can't be strictly decorative, they have to be used to illustrate some kind of commentary from the article. Having a quote from the show as the caption makes the image seem decorative; a descriptive caption makes it more of an illustration or example of some key part of the episode and ties it in more to the text of the article. (Or at least, that's my understanding.) --Brian Olsen 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
How about quotes followed by description? To the think that quotes are just decorative is misunderstood. A quote, if chosen carefully can be more descriptive and can explain a lot more.
Just as an example, If for Utopia, there was the image of the computer screen with the map to Utopia on it. It would be a little confusing, unless it had the quote from the Professor
"The call came from across the stars...come to Utopia",
that quote would tell me a lot more than having
"The professor shows the Doctor where Utopia is."--Brinstar 12:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not much use if it doesn't identify the person speaking and the context. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive time!

I think it's probably time to archive the page - may be we could even set up a MiszaBot to do it? Any views?--Rambutan (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD store

I haven't watched again, but I thought Sally and Larry had opened their own store that was into the paranormal, and so forth, rather than running the DVD store Larry worked in at the beginning. john k 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a DVD store -- they just named it after themselves. DonQuixote 00:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it the same DVD store, though? john k 03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe it's a DVD store and antiquitarian(sp) books shop. 217.155.104.92 14:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought, too. I think it's a new store. john k 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a question-Kathy Nightingale goes from 2007 to 1920. She dies in 1987. How does she know that her grandson has a DVD store (in the letter) at the beginning? I know that she knows about DVD's since she's from 2007. But did DVD stores exist in 1987? Just a bit confused about that. Or did I miss something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.48.3 (talk) 01:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you missed that it isn't her grandson's DVD shop — it's her brother's, whom we meet earlier in the episode. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Locked

The "quantum Locked" idea is based on the Quantum Zeno effect which is the bizarre fact that in quantum mechanics, if you keep observing something, it doesn't evolve as fast as it would if you didn't observe it. (Otherwise known as "a watched pot never boils".) I'm going to change the link in the story summary to reflect this. I hope nobody minds. Sigfpe 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a more appropriate link. Whether Moffat was aware of the concept, I don't know. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 05:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shop details

1. Kathy's brother evidently does not "run" the DVD shop at which his sister says he "works", inasmuch as he appaears to be ordered around by the geek at the front counter. 2. The shop that "Sparrow & Nightingale" are co-operating a year later is not a DVD store, it is an "Antiquarian Booksellers". Asat 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sparrow = Goodnight Sweetheart

Could the use of the last name 'Sparrow' be a reference to the tv show "Goodnight Sweetheart"?

Clofts 10:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if Moffat says it was. And if it was, would that be relevant? Perhaps there were birds in the garden the day he was writing the story. Or perhaps the girl he fancied at school was called Sparrow. Or he has an aged Aunt Sparrow whose substantial fortune he hopes to inherit. Perhaps he opened the phone book at random. None of those would be relevant, either. (And remain speculation). Gwinva 02:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I'll take that as a no then... Clofts 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound rude. It's just that we don't know, and don't know if it's relevant, anyway. But nice idea. Gwinva 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The D.V.D.s themselves

I meant to ask this when the episode first aired, but got sidetracked printing out the main page and seperating it into it's different time-periods. Anyway, now that the identity of the D.V.D.s are important, via Warriors of Kudlak, does anyone know what the D.V.D.s were, beside Acid Burn? [User: Stripey]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.12.191 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. Click on "Bantos DVDs". — Edokter • Talk • 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empty Child father reference

The Doctor does refer to being a father in The Empty Child, albeit indirectly.:
(constatine)"before the war, I was a father and a grandfather. Now I'm neither, but I am still a doctor"
{doctor) "Yeah. I know the feeling."
StuartDD contributions 10:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not really anywhere near as oblique as it ought to be to go in the article, IMO.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
perhaps "referred to being a father before (in "Fear Her" and indirectly in "The Empty Child")" could be used. StuartDD contributions 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)