Talk:Planet of the Ood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planet of the Ood article.
Article policies
Good article Planet of the Ood has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 24, 2008.
May 6, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Paul Clayton

I very much doubt that the Paul Clayton whom is linked in the nav is the one who acted in this episode, given he commited suicide in 1967. - JVG (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity points (merged)

  • The music changes at the end of the episode. When the Ood says that The Doctors song must end soon it changes to that of when The Doctor met Rose for the last time..--83.217.170.161 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it played the Doctor's Theme, not Doomsday. It's the Time Lord motif, as it were, rather than Rose's. Would anyone mind if I edited to reflect that? justaredherring (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would, yeah, because it was definitely "Doomsday". —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, rewatched, and you're right. My apologies. >_> justaredherring (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • When they land on Oodsphere, the Doctor marvels that it's a "proper snow at last." A reference to all three Christmas episodes where the snow was caused by something other than nature. --Drscompanion2 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
How ironic, for it wasn't anything more than wet paper shreds and bits for simulation, see the last paragraph of the production notes — does that still count?
—WurmWoodeT 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It appears now that 'Planet Of The Ood', 'The Impossible Planet' and 'The Satan Pit' all take place in the 42nd century. I seem to remember from the DVD commentary of '42' that Russel T Davies said that '42' was set then too, adding more significance to the name of the episode and tying up why the look of the episode was so similar to that of 'The Impossible Planet'/'The Satan Pit'.
It seems worth a mention to slot these episodes into the Doctor Who timeline and mark the links in the continuity section. Winterspell (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see that we're making these articles more in keeping with general Wikipedia guidelines, with an out-of-universe focus and an avoidance of trivia. That said, I was wondering whether there might be room to note the Simpsons reference in this episode, especially since it's mentioned on the BBC website. The Simpsons has referenced Doctor Who several times (see Doctor Who spoofs), and now Doctor Who has returned the favour. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume we can't mention the connection between the airing on the first seder-night and the motif of freeing a slave race? No? Thought not ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The doctor mentions the 2nd great and bountiful human empire. He had previously mentioned the 4th great and bountiful human empire in The Long Game 70.79.143.141 (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Steve 10:40 , 20 Apr 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought I heard this when I watched the episode, but I am not 100% sure so I thought I would ask here. When Donna whistles at the Doctor, he asks her where she learned to whistle like that. Her response, to my ears, was "West Ham every Saturday," which suggests that she is a Hammers supporter. As an American who as never been to the UK, I am not sure if Donna has been shown as living in East London (where one expects a West Ham supporter to be), so I don't know if this is accurate, or I just misheard, or what. Any help would be appreciated; at the very least this makes for an interesting trivia point about Donna. Thanks! Ljacone (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Donna is previously established as being from Chiswick, in West London. I don't know enough about football rivalries to know what team someone from Chiswick would normally support. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Chiswick article here on Wikipedia makes no mention of a local football team either. Maybe Donna's family moved from West Ham's catchment area? Digifiend (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

      • I did some research, using www.footiemap.com, and here on Wikipedia. The two closest clubs to Chiswick are Fulham F.C. and Chelsea F.C.. West Ham and Chelsea have something of traditional, East London-West London rivalry, and Donna's whistling could be seen as derisive; ie, heckling of the rival club. But since none of this is confirmed anywhere, it's just speculation, and obviously should not be included in the article. Made for some interesting research though! Ljacone (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

OK, folks, I'm having trouble thinking of an image we can use that will satisfy the NFCC... but there must be one!! Any ideas? —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The giant Ood brain. Alientraveller (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, we don't have to have one ;) Sceptre (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
But it'd be nice! —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
How about an Ood holding a hind-brain. That should be informative. DonQuixote (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and has the advantage of being unique to this story and central to its plot. Good suggestion. Radagast (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
True, and nowhere on this site do I see an image of an Ood! Alientraveller (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I already made the screenshot; will upload when I get home (around 10pm CET). — Edokter • Talk • 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, hope you like it. — Edokter • Talk • 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How about an image of a group of Ood with "Red Eye", simple, threatening and a little chilling, just like the episode.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.181.141 (talk • contribs)

Because it wouldn't satisfy the NFCC. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy

The Doctor notes that the Ood couldn't evolve into being a subservient species because they wouldn't be able to survive in nature that way, but somehow the Ood are perfectly fine evolutionarily carrying around their own brains? Shouldn't this incongruity be mentioned somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyinginbedmon (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 April 2008

No, it shouldn't, because aside from being illogical, it also violates our policy on original research. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The episode makes no mention of Richard Dawkins's "selfish-gene" hypothesis, nor is it in fact related to anything the Doctor says. The reference in the episode is just to evolution by natural selection, not a particular way of understanding or cataloging it. I suggest removing the reference to "selfish-gene."

We aren't bound by what the episode says. DWM makes a point about the Ood's subservience, and the selfish gene argument is what the "The Ood aren't born like this" quote is about. Sceptre (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It isn't. The Selfish gene theory does not state that a species cannot evolve into slavery. Indeed, if it benefits reprodution and/or spread of the own genes, evolving into slavery would be perfectly fine with the selfish Gene. See symbiosis and domestication for similar phenomena in real evolution. 90.135.227.254 (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not getting into a debate about biology. I'm just saying, DWM says that line is about the selfish gene, and it's be "verifiability, not truth". Sceptre (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where there's hypocrisy. Type 40 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narrator of Ood Marketing Video

It's not listed in the credits, but it sounds very much like Gabriel Woolf provides the narration for the Ood commercial. (Gabriel Woolf, of course, the voice of The Beast in The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit.)
Is there any way this can be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.136.77 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Song or Story

I disagree that Song and Story are synonyms in the context and since what is said by the characters in the episode is "song" I can see no reason why "story" would be substituted. Jasonfward (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ballad? Type 40 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doomsday music

I dispute the commented out notes in the text saying the use of the Doomsday music is unverifable. The episode is the source, plus when taken in context with Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) there is a clear connection (though noting that would be premature). It is a dead guarantee that any recorded commentary will also verify this, so if anyone wants to be anal about it, add the "Citation needed" tag until the commentary is made available on the DVD in a few months. 23skidoo (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The commentary for the episode just has the collective gasp at that part, unlike the PiC commentary which has Tennant explicitly saying "that's the music from Doomsday". Besides, the series 3 soundtrack has two very similar pieces of music: "Boe" and "The Doctor Forever". Sceptre (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

someone please add reviews,criticism,praise, etc...can't do it myself as could never be npov about tate >:( Jw2034 (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

OK, could someone clarify this for me? I'm asusming speculation "isn't allowed" on the pages, after I put a bit down and it was deleted. Is that right?

The speculation I thought about was Donna mentioning "all the bees disappearing", she said this in the first episode as well, possibly refering to a future episode, perhaps the Unicorn and the Wasp or whichever episode has wasps/bees in (if it's not TUATW). It could also be a reference to the last episode, as there are links between every episode going to the last one? (Heard on Dr Who Confidential). What do you think? Dvp7 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that unless the production team specifically state the bees vanishing is important, we can only make the connections retroactively for the purposes of a continuity section. In addition, at present, we have no reliable/verifiable sources saying that it will be important, so we have to wait for it to become important before it can be noted. I think that's right? 86.136.156.205 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a reference to a plot point but to an actual fact. The bees *are* disappearing and no one knows why. See Colony Collapse Disorder. Type 40 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "too old Doctor Who"

What does this actually mean? Paul Melville Austin (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably means too old style Doctor Who, so not so much what it is today, meant for all ages not just adults kind of thing. Dvp7 (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
DW's original run. Sceptre (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a reference to the Malcolm Hulke/Terrence Dicks era moral undertones to the story a la The Silurians. Type 40 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

From WP:References: When quoting someone you should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after (or just before) the quotation, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it is a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quotation' as an example." For long quotes, you may wish to use Quotation templates.

Thus you need a reference at least at the end of every sentance where you have been using quotations even if it is the same reference, as it must be made 100% undeniably clear where a direct quotation has come from. This will be necessary for me to pass this article at GA and will be included in the GA review once it is completed so please don't remove the {{fact}} templates when I re-add them. I know it is quite obvious but it is the rule and it is one of the policies GA articles need to pass. Your other option is to combine sentances to make them longer Million_Moments (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed. There is no reason to place references after every sentence; they entire paragraph is cited at the end of the relevant sentences, which should be quite enough. If you are adament about it, alias the references with a named ref tag; don't add {{fact}} tags; that runs the risk of the quotes being removed entirely. — Edokter • Talk • 11:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I was merely adding the {{fact}} tags so that when I put this article on hold the editors will more easily be able to see where I want them to move the references, it is doubtful the quotations will be removed. However since the GA review process does encourage the reviwer to make the changes to pass the article themselves I will just add the citations myself though this will delay the review process somewhat as I will have to read the articles myself to be certain. I was hoping the editors who added the original references would do the named ref tag process as I assume they have read the articles. Million_Moments (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: References should always be given after direct quotes, fixed. Do not reference unoficial figures.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)