Talk:Rose (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Picture

you have got to be kidding me with that picture. you cant see her face. der.

Time travelling

How appropriate that someone travelled back in time to write this article.... the article itself says it is not due to be aired for another three days! Pcb21| Pete 12:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course! :) If this is genuine confusion, see Note 2. :) --khaosworks 15:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yep I saw the note about the leak, but thought the first line - "which originally aired on March 26, 2005" - should perhaps be "will air on..." but it will be fine in few days. Nice work on the synposis. Pcb21| Pete 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who box

The Doctor Who box looks great; the only production credit which may deserve an addition is Script Editor, since the Script Editors were so instrumental to the eras of the early series. I must admit I don't know if the new series has a Script Editor credit... (I haven't seen it the first episode yet -- I skipped most of the spoiler in this article.) --Guybrush 04:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis

This is not a synopsis it is a play-by-play, a synopsis should be a brief outline. Whilst it is very accurate I think it is somewhat off-putting for a casual reader. We should look to include more information on the leak a few weeks ago, something on the superior production values of the new series (I've heard the TARDIS control room cost £100k alone), and how the show performed when the ratings come out. Given the hype surrounding this we should look to make a decent encyclopedic article out of it. However, my knowledge of Dr. Who isn't sufficient for me to carry out any of these suggestions, so I'll just leave them here as advice for anyone who might want to listen to my waffling. :) Rje 02:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Some of it is in History of Doctor Who. I've actually been toying with the idea of spinning off a new article just for the 2005 series alone from that article, since it's so distinct from the original and deliberately so. Unfortunately, that will have to wait when I actually have loads of time to focus, which right now I don't. --khaosworks 04:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this is too long. If there are going to be "summaries" of this length for every episode, I think there also need to be true "synopsis" length descriptions in an article on the whole series. Wincoote 23:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What if we insert a little "Plot" section just prior to the full recap? --khaosworks 00:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the length of this synopsis - it is all encyclopaedic. --82.46.90.231 12:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For a 45 minutes episode the synopsis looks rather long - encyclopaedic should mean informative not verbatim. GraemeLeggett 17:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Done a bit of thinning. see Ghostlight for an example of how it should be done. GraemeLeggett 17:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shorter now, but more could still be done. GraemeLeggett

I'm sorry, but I'm still going to partially revert it. There are some details that are still important that are left out. For example - Rose doesn't believe the Doctor, but she's still listening; that's one reason why the Doctor offers to take her along in the end. the Consciousness doesn't accuse the Doctor of anything that we can understand anyway, it's just surmise from his side of the conversation. I want to give the sense of the mystery as if this is the first time people watch the show as well. --khaosworks 14:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Still too long. As a synopsis, detail is the last thing that is required. We need a third opinion here. GraemeLeggett 15:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's part of the reason why I included the plot section. I note that I have been doing these kinds of summaries for some months now without complaint. But yes, let's wait for more opinions. --khaosworks 15:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a casual observer I do think your "plot" section is a little excessively detailed. I like the way the BBC episode guide (classic series) has for each episode sections of continuity, quotes and trivia. It wouldn't be appropriate here to include "analysis" unless you were to lift reviews from elsewhere and credit them, but quotes and continuity sections would be nice here for the new series. I'm disappointed the BBC website hasn't adopted this format for the new series episode guide, so it would be nice to know somewhere where that info is available. It would also make more interesting reading than a blow by blow account of a story that we've either seen or would rather see than read about. No offence intended, I just thought you might like a users opinion to help you come to a decision regarding this.

For what (little) it's worth, the episode guide you refer to on the BBC's site is actually adapted from two reference works: The Television Companion by David J. Howe, and Stephen James Walker, and The Discontinuity Guide by Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping. IIRC the continuity and quotes come from the Discontinuity Guide, and the trivia comes from The Television Companion. —Josiah Rowe 03:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
No offence taken, although I would of course rather keep the detailed plots, primarily as a quick and dirty reference if I need to confirm some specific event in an episode as a first resort before I wade through my own copies of the televised one.
In answer to your other question about continuity and trivia, though, we've tried to do something on those lines with the "Notes" section, though we're also constrained by the no original research policy. Quotations more properly belong on Wikiquotes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
One advantage of detailed plots is that it alleviates the need for articles on minor characters, generally much despised on 'pedia. Secondly, as Khaosworks says it proves a useful reference. I guess there is a little controversy about how long synopses should be, but the only time that I am aware the community decided to crack down on it was over the extremely detailed analysis of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which was moved to wikibooks IIRC. As the serial synopses don't make the articles over the recommended 32k, I think there isn't much concern. --TimPope 16:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Title

Why was this page moved to Doctor Who episode 161: Rose? What was wrong with the old title? BillyH 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good question! These things should now be discussed at wikipedia:Wikiproject Doctor Who as an appropriate forum for drastic changes to existing articles --TimPope 22:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bad Wolf

You missed the reference in this episode. I appended it, and fixed the reference in the "Bad Wolf" episode description. If there are any other references, they might bear some repairing.

I'm reverting it. It's just not there. See Talk:Bad Wolf. --khaosworks 12:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The 'Missing' Titanic Adventure

I have added a note to the article (Note 20) but someone might want to put in all the links. I have not seen anyone else make the suggestion that the Titanic adventure takes place while the Doc is away for a few seconds at the end of the episode, if there is a flaw in my reasoning, by all means delete the note. (Damian)

Hi. I deleted the note, and I thought I put my reasons in the edit summary, but here they are again. We see the picture of the Doctor at Southampton, but we have no indication he actually went on the Titanic (tellingly, the family he posed with did not go on the Titanic). While it is entirely possible he went to the Kennedy assassination, Krakatoa, etc. during his little jaunt near the end after he leaves Rose and before he returns, we have no real evidence for this. In any case, even if he did return, it does not necessarily mean he did so because he "felt" for Rose. Another possible reason (also speculative, which is why it's not there) may be because he saw some evidence that he and Rose would be travelling together in the future, so he went back because he knew that had to happen. --khaosworks 23:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Buuuuuuut...... As I said, in Aliens of London the Doctor says he DID go on the Titanic. It is possible that it was a previous Doctor that went ON the ship, and the Ninth only went NEAR the ship, but you can assume that with some many times and places to visit in his short 900 year lifetime, he isn't going to visit the same 'little' ship twice. Therefore I believe we can reasonably assume it WAS this Doctor that went on the ship (after warning the family he poses with not to, the kind of thing the Doctor is likely to do) and that the end of 'Rose' is the most likely point at which to do it. Thank you for explaining why you deleted my note. I won't put it back until I hear a third opinion. (Damian)
If you take the novels as any kind of evidence, the Doctor may have visited the Titanic multiple times. He materialises the TARDIS on board it in The Left-Handed Hummingbird by Kate Orman, but he does not hang around to be "clinging to an iceberg". --khaosworks 13:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a new Note that might address your points in a more non-speculative way (or at least grants it is only a possibility). --khaosworks 13:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this bit at the end of the episode the ONLY time the Ninth Doctor is away from Rose? In which case, surely both the picture and the painting we see earlier in the episode must have been taken/drawn in this time. Which places the Titanic adventure here.
He also leaves Rose at her council estate only to show up again in the restaurant where she is with the faux Mickey. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Series/Season

Does the BBC really refer to it as Season 1 rather than Series 1? 'Season' is much more common in American usage than British, but these things do change over time so I wouldn't like to say for sure. --DudeGalea 05:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The BBC called it Series 1. That's what the note says... --khaosworks 12:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I questioned it only because in your last edit you changed "Series" to "Season". (It's the bit where you talk about "Season 27"; sorry, my example was supposed to be generic, but I now realise that there also happens to be a reference to "Series 1" in the paragraph, which is probably why you think I'm mad. :-) ) --DudeGalea 12:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Okay, the BBC never really called it Series twiddledyump or whatever. It was just production codes. It was the fans that started assigning Season numbers to them, and by a historical quirk, they called them "Seasons" instead of "Series" and we've been stuck with them ever since. Now, BBC're calling it Series 1, because they want a clean slate - so to speak - and anyway, the old production code system doesn't work anymore with the way episodes are being produced today. --khaosworks 12:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. In a strange way, that's quite nice. If it's "Series", we know that the numbering starts from now. If it's "Season", then we're talking old school. Hmm. Yes. Nice... if you're a Who-nerd. :-) --DudeGalea 17:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Krakatoa

This is Clive's line, from Doctor Who: The Shooting Scripts:

"1883, another Doctor — look, the same lineage, he's identical — this one was washed up on the coast of Sumatra, on the very night that Krakatoa erupted."

The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa is famous, and its effects were felt world-wide. There may or may not have been a minor eruption in 1880, but the vast majority of the evidence suggests that the website is simply in error. And we've got a note about that on the page, so there's no need to add it to the episode summary as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, see http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano-tours/volcanoes/indonesia/west_java/krakatau/ which lists the dates for eruptions for Krakatau (the local name for Krakatoa) - prior to 1883, the last eruption was in the 17th century. Of course, that doesn't mean that in the Whoniverse there wasn't an eruption in 1880, but everything in the context of Clive's dialogue points to the most famous 1883 eruption. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least you kept the condradictory date on the article though.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Read some of the survivor's accounts (such as in Krakatoa, by Rubert Furneaux)- the Sunda Strait was blacked out from afternoon on the 27th to the 29th or 30th. Also, the people in the area had much more on their minds than either making sketches or picking up something on the beach. The islands were uninhabited at the time (although I suppose the Doctor could have stayed there long enough to build a hut; but the eruption started in May!), and had lost their vegetation by late July. The volcano shown is obviously patterned after the pic on Winchester's book, rather than any of the actual sketches of Krakatoa. And let's not forget the 50 foot high tsunami at Sumatra. (At least they didn't say Java, where the wave hit over 100 feet high.) CFLeon 05:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Clive's death on screen

It wasn't seen, but it was very implied. The mannequin lowered its fingers, we see Clive looking as if "what's he going to do?" and then we hear an Auton gun, then Mrs Clive screams. It's pretty obvious, really.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Clive's death was implied, although I'd characterize his look differently: since it comes right after his line about "it's all true, everything I've read...", I interpreted his look as the realization that the other part of what he'd read was true too: that when the Doctor's around, death is never far behind. He's almost resigned, really.
That said, I agree with the edit.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

BBC Online Doctor Who Contact System

What is this? It doesn't show up on google. Could you explain, please? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry (well not really) that's not the right term. On the BBC website for DW, under the FAQ section, there's a contact facility. I emailed them via that, getting a reply from this address with the reply. Go to the DW homepage, click Gallery or Downloads or anything, then under the BBC3 icon on the left hand side click "contact". Go down to the bottom of that page.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, that's not a published source, unfortunately, and may fall under original research. Be that as it may, who is this person who replied to your e-mail? Is he a member of the production team? How does he know this? Could you post the e-mail here? In case you misunderstand, these queries are not about doubting your veracity - I'm curious about the veracity of this guy's information. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Terribly sorry: I seem to have deleted it, but his name was (I think) David Ch..., I'll email again if you want, or you could if you'll doubt the authenticity of my sources. What I asked was along the lines of "What is the name of the recurring theme played during Rose's speeded-up day...", but you may wish to ask "Is that music called the Flavius theme?". Reply if you want me to re-email.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've e-mailed them. But I have my reservations about this as really if it's unpublished it probably falls under OR. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you transcribe the bit of the article dealing with the Cecilia Anne and Rose Goes to Work bit, please? Also, I'd quite like the Walking Somewhere bit in there, it's quite widely known amongst the fans I know personally. Could you put it in if u think it's OK. Thanks,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Being widely known among the fans you know personally unfortunately isn't necessarily notable enough. If it were used by a much bigger number or more widespread, perhaps. Murray Gold's exact words in the interview were: "It's a bit like a tune by The Pixies called Cecelia Ann..." and he goes on to say how he thought the production team would hate it but they liked it anyway. It's not much. The sidebar says: "The opening 'Rose goes to work' music in Rose reappears in numerous episodes." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Could I (if it's not too much trouble) have the transcription of the part in which he says the prod. team would hate it and (no trouble to you) upload a (literally) 10 second clip of the one played in Boom Town, which gives the idea perfectly. I can upload it as .ogg or .wav, but would it breach copyright? Fair use?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Not trying to imply anything, mate, but you could get a copy of DWM yourself. :) I mean, it's obvious to me that you're a new fan (and we love new fans!), and DWM is a great magazine, with lots of juicy information on the past stories as well. That being said, he simply goes, "And as I played it, I thought... 'They're going to hate this!' And to do that, and stick with it, right at the beginning of such a massive project, was really hard. But I felt that it was right, and at the dub everyone agreed it was right." This actually needs to be set in context; the point he's trying to make is about the amount of freedom he has with the music, but the rest is too long to transcribe fully.
As for the file, yeah, I think it would be a copyviol. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

More on the "Flavius"/Flavia theme

I haven't seen the email from the BBC website that apparently referred to the "Rose goes to work" music as the "Flavius" theme. However, I've just received the Series One DVD, and in the commentary for this episode Russell T. Davies and Phil Collinson refer to the spooky female vocals (first heard as the Doctor walks to the TARDIS after the "turn of the earth" speech) as "President Flavia", a reference to the Time Lady seen as Chancellor in The Five Doctors and later referred to as President. (Was she called President Flavia in The Trial of a Time Lord, or was that just fanon that was later included into the novels? I can't remember.) It seems likely to me that some wires got crossed somewhere, and someone unfamiliar with the character heard "Flavia's theme" as "Flavius theme". At any rate, I think that the DVD commentary by the producers is a more reliable source than an email from the website, so I'll change the note accordingly. Someone should probably add mentions of the other times that theme is heard in the series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That actually makes a hell of a lot more sense than "Flavius" theme - in fact, I suspected it might be Flavia (I believe I corrected it to that when it was first introduced into the article, but it got changed back). She wasn't President in The Five Doctors, but the Doctor told her to be acting president until he got back. We only find out later in the novels that she did become President and got removed from office after a scandal involving her being drunk while in charge of the Sash of Rassilon (mentioned in Happy Endings I think). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember the references to her in the New Adventures (and how they were roughly contradicted by Terrance Dicks in The Eight Doctors, where she was President again, with no sign of her NA successor Romana). I just wasn't sure whether she got a namecheck in Trial as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected! I hope you'll admit that it isna my fault, though.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said from the start, no one doubts your veracity. It was the veracity of the information we weren't sure of. Now it's cleared up. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I've just gotten an e-mail back from the BBC site. Whoever he is, he confirms that it's not the "Rose going to work" theme but the one used when the Doctor kisses Rose in POTW, and the same one that Davies refers to as Flavia's theme. in the DVD commentary. He also confirms that the spelling is Flavia's, not Flavius. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Alternate versions

I've just spotted that the BBFC website shows two different versions of this episode[1][2]. Both are rated PG, but one is 40 seconds longer, and has "Language: once, very mild" instead of "Language: none". Has anyone spotted two different versions? It looks like two different versions were submitted simultaneously for the DVD approval — does the released DVD version match the TV broadcast? --KJBracey 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't catch anything. There is some innuendo between Mickey and Rose that I didn't catch the first time (When Rose goes to Mickey's place to use his PC he says to her, "OK, kit off!" but I can't say for certain if that wasn't on the televised version). Speaking of alternate versions, does anyone know what Sci-Fi plans to do with Rose and End of the World when they air the 2-hour premiere of the series in March? Will they edit the two episodes together? 23skidoo 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Post-regeneration trauma

I have never seen Power of the Daleks, the first Troughton story, nor have I gotten my hands on a recording or the novelization. Did the Second Doctor experience any sort of post-regeneration trauma in that serial? The reason I ask that is because Rose could be the first Doctor Who post-regeneration episode that doesn't deal with the Doctor being "out of sorts" after the event ... or at the very least, the first since 1966. 23skidoo 00:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

IIRC (from the soundtrack), Troughton isn't particularly "out of sorts" in the way that later Doctors are after a regeneration. The only odd thing is that he refers to "the Doctor" in the third person, which might (in retrospect) be viewed as a sign of mental confusion.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Doc II was just having Ben & Polly on with that. It's not delivered in a way that suggests confusion - just the opposite.
Basically, he's dizzy for a few minutes, but that's about it. [Of course, that's the only "natural" regeneration we've seen, i.e. Doc I passes of natural causes. Doc II himself is basically executed by the Time Lords, leading to III sleeping for a couple of days; III is "killed" by radiation sickness, although IV doesn't react too badly - he's knocked out for a couple of hours, but doesn't really act much more weirdly than IV later would; IV falls off a tall building, and V is very weak and nearly dies outright as a result; V is poisoned, and VI is briefly psychotic; VI either (a) banged his head off the console; (b) got burnt out by "chroniton energy" (Spiral Scratch) or (c) is forced to commit suicide by Doc VII's emerging personality (New Adventures) and VII gets amnesia for a while; and VII is shot, then has a botched operation performed on him, leading to more amnesia for VIII, and X reacts similarly to III after IX is burnt out by vortex energy) - SoM 02:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Pedantic correction (my specialty): the newly regenerated Seventh Doctor doesn't actually have amnesia until the Rani gives him a shot. It's not the silliest thing about Time and the Rani, but it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd also argue that IV does behave rather strangely after his regeneration, fleeing in his TARDIS (and apparently becoming the evil Xoanan according to The Face of Evil). He does recover fairly quickly, though. 23skidoo 16:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it's not inarguable that Rose takes place immediately after a regeneration. The only real evidence for it is the scene in Rose's apartment ("pity about the ears"), but it could just as well be that it's been a while since the Doctor regenerated but he hasn't taken the time to look in a mirror. The Ninth Doctor did (usually) seem a bit less self-conscious than other incarnations... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually wrote an otherwise unremarkable fanfic (you can find it on OG, under "The Second Coming" in the fanfic section of the forums) which explains (as an aside to the plot), why the Ninth Doctor has (a) a crew cut, (b) a Northern accent and (c) hasn't looked in a mirror prior to Rose. Oh, the joys of fanwankery. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
(Replying to Josiah). Maybe that's the way it can be worded -- that this is the first post-regeneration story to not take place immediately after a regeneration. After all -- though of course there's no way to know for certain -- it's possible IX might have been to Dallas, Southampton and Sumatra before meeting Rose. 23skidoo 16:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think note #9 covers the uncertainty about the regeneration (and the fact that we don't know its exact circumstances) well enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

American Ratings?

This may be premature, but is there any news on the ratings for the U.S. premiere of Rose yet? I appreciate that their system may well not have an 'overnight' figure, but if it does then it might be worth recording in the page. DavidFarmbrough 11:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually they do have overnight figures, as I've seen them reported for Enterprise and Battlestar Galactica in the past, but for some reason the ratings for Doctor Who weren't reported anywhere. I would imagine such numbers should be available today (Monday). Personally I ignore overnights because they are never accurate and the final figure usually ends up being either much higher or much lower than reported initially. Also apparently only the initial showing will be rated, and not the replay which followed and I know a lot of people watched it instead of the first showing... 23skidoo 12:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. DavidFarmbrough 13:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

According to [3] Rose got a 2.1 rating, but there was a drop off to 1.5 for End of the World (of course the bashers are saying it's because they believe Rose was a bad episode, when more likely it's due to the fact a lot of folks may have been unaware of the second hour). As the link above says, however, these numbers don't come from an official source so may be wrong. For that reason I wouldn't recommend posting them here yet. Sci-Fi, being a specialty cable network, has a much smaller viewership than the major networks, so my understanding is both numbers are pretty good for Sci-Fi. 23skidoo 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Luck Be a Lady ...

The odds of RTD realizing the connection to Delta and the Bannerman is probably very slim, but I thought it was still a neat coincidence. Perhaps the "Guys and Dolls" could also be a reference to the Autons ... but that's stretching it a bit... 23skidoo 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Colour

I think its just an interesting historical piece of trivia that the first of the new series of Doctor Who reintroduces an enemy first seen in the first colour Doctor Who. Morwen - Talk 18:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Who Killed Kennedy?

Even though I have yet to read the book, my first stumbling-upon it struck me as startling... Does this mention of the Ninth Doctor's presence in the episode discount or warp the account of that book? Or the otherwise... I think a mention of it is in any case essential, even though it's rather uncanonical other books tend to be mentioned. DrWho42 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm in mentioning it, but there's nothing in the "Rose" episode to discount or support anything that occurs in Who Killed Kennedy. All we know is that the Ninth Doctor was in the crowd. 23skidoo 00:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Obviously, this page is called "Rose (Doctor Who)" because there's a need to disambiguate it from other "Rose"s. However, there is no real necessity to further disambiguate it because "Rose (Doctor Who)" never existed as a separate page that required disambiguating (unlike "Dalek (Doctor Who)", which did exist prior to the episode's broadcast, hence necessitating a disambiguating term).

Disambiguation is to help people use Wikipedia to find what they want, and should reflect the way people actually use the encyclopedia. When people want to find information about Rose Tyler, they'll type in "Rose Tyler" and reach the right article. If people aren't sure, they'll type "Rose" and be ultimately directed to the "Rose" disambiguation page and find her from there. If they want to find "Rose" the episode, the latter situation similarly applies. Nobody is going to type in "Rose (Doctor Who)" (or at least it's very unlikely that a casual user will do so), because people don't normally disambiguate in their normal use of the term.

We should disambiguate when it is actually necessary, and such disambiguation should reflect real world usage, not be disambiguating for the sake of disambiguating. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Page reorganization

I just did a major revamp on the page in an attempt to work the Trivia information into the body of the article. Mostly I just organized it into various sections, with some rewording. I think it mostly still reads as "bullets," although I tried to smooth it out into a more prose-like format. Obviously there's still work to be done. I believe I only out-and-out deleted two items - the link between the mention of the Kennedy assassination and the airing of An Unearthly Child, while possibly true, seemed like original research to me; and the reference to "World's End" on the bus Rose takes seemed way too trivial, given that it isn't even visible in the episode. I also revamped the references - I changed to the "cite" template format, which, while admittedly harder for editors, is easier for readers; and I found a new reference for one of them, which was a broken link.

I've (slowly) been doing these types of changes for the original series. While I think much of the information in the "Trivia" sections is worthwhile, in its present format it doesn't come across as particularly encyclopedic. I jumped ahead to this article because, as the first episode of the new series, it's often used as an example of Doctor Who episode articles, and I thought an attempt should be made to make it more than just a plot summary and a trivia dump. Hope nobody was bothered by me being so bold... --Brian Olsen 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement. Well done, Brian. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I second that with two comments: one, the arrangement of sections could do with a little discussion (i.e., which should come first). So far, I've been doing, in order: Cast, Music, Continuity, Production, Outside References, then Broadcast and DVD releases. Two, I think we should get away from the idea that bullets are necessarily evil (I don't know anything policy or guideline wise that supports such a contention aside from aesthetic reasons). Bulletting in some circumstances is more distinct and less confusing that a series of more-or-less disconnected paragraphs and sometimes should be retained for clarity's sake. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Manual of style#Bulleted lists says "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted." I think that in a case like this, we're better off putting loosely grouped items of information together as prose rather than as a bulleted list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! And I've no particular attachment to the order of sections - my thinking had been that Production just seemed like it should come first, since it deals with the creation of the episode, but I can see Continuity coming first, to more closely follow the Plot section. Should we move this discussion to the main project page, with the goal of eventually adding a set order to the style guide? I've a few more comments, but we may want to open up the discussion a bit more first. --Brian Olsen 17:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When is it set?

We assume it's 2005, but she doesn't return until a year later (Aliens of London). --Anthrcer 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)