Talk:The Shakespeare Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] References

I removed the comment about the power of names being a reference to Earthsea. The magical power of someone's true name is common in mythology and fiction, and I don't think in this case that it is a reference to Earthsea. Iregretthisname 22:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Margaret

[edit] I remember reading something I want to cite

I am almost sure I remember reading an article or seeing an interview where RTD says something along the lines that the episode won't refer to the past appearences/name droppings of Shakespeare but it won't contradict them either. Does anyone else remember this? And if so can you find a link to it so it can be cited? --GracieLizzie 12:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it sounds familiar, but I can't place it off the top of my head. I'll have a look round. If I fail to find it, Gareth Roberts says something similar in the latest DWM, which will probably suffice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found it, it's in the Newsround interview with Lizo Mzimba. It's not in the written version but it's in Newsround Player video. But if you have a similar comment from Gareth Roberts, Josiah maybe adding it would also strengthen the comment? --GracieLizzie 14:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll add it — sorry I forgot about this for so long. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) --GracieLizzie 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it was a book far before this episode

probably should mention in this article that it was a book title published in 2000, three years before "The Da Vinci Code" was published

You're right, I looked it up and the book in question seems to be a text book by a Virginia Fellows, ISBN 1-5872-1519-5. While I doubt that this book is the inspiration for the title of the this episode it does raise an issue. Should this article be moved to The Shakespeare Code (Doctor Who) and have the current page become a disambiguation page? --GracieLizzie 13:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No. If someone creates the page for the book then it can read "The Shakespeare Code (book)". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have thought we'd have "The Shakespeare Code (book)" and "The Shakespeare Code (Doctor Who)" with "The Shakespeare Code" being a disambiguation page (like Everything Changes, Everything Changes (Torchwood), and Everything Changes (Take That album))? --GracieLizzie 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If there's only two items that need to be distinguished from one another, there's no real need for an extra disambiguation page. A {{Otheruses}} tag will suffice. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a "Distinguish2" to the page for the time being, should someone make an article on the book it can be linked with a different "otheruses" template. However if the book does yet added which should get the use of the "unsuffixed" page? After all the book did come first. --GracieLizzie 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of first in time anywhere, really, neither is it a hard and fast rule. Ultimately, it's down to a judgment call on which is more notable, or which we think people are coming to look for. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis?

I'm just wondering, is there any information that can certify the synopsis someone added to the article as factual? Could this be added as a citation? Thank you. Hikan 19:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hikan (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Note

"The Sixth Doctor quotes from Shakespeare's Hamlet in The Two Doctors, while lamenting the death of Botcherby."

Wasn't it Botcherby himself ("To die, to sleep; to sleep, perchance to dream")? --Jawr256 09:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the Sixth Doctor says, "Goodnight, sweep prince," as well when Oscar dies. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'celebrity historical'

The article states this is the third 'celebrity historical' after 'Unquiet Dead' and 'Tooth and Claw'. Surely 'Girl in the Fireplace' is one also? That would make this the fourth... Gwinva 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While Madam de Pompadour may be a famous historical figure, she's not a household name like Dickens, Queen Victoria, or Shakespeare. I didn't even know who she was until I looked her up before episode so I'd have some idea who she was. --GracieLizzie 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Madame de Pompadour certainly would be a household name if you were French or at least moderately Francophile. Why should the Doctor be Anglocentric? I think that this one is fairly called a celebrity historical. Even a Yank like myself knows of Madame de Pompadour.IanThal 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, DW is Anglocentric because it's British. Like Stargate and such are Americacentric because their American ::shrugs:: I thought Madame de Pompadour might have such fame in France, but I didn't want to assume this and the be incorrect. Although I suppose if someone like George Washington, Napoleon or Tutankhamen who aren't British but still household names ever appear in DW that would be a Celebrity Historical too. --GracieLizzie 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also an issue of branding: each of the first two series was toted as having one celebrity historical, and the S2 one was definitely T&C. You can kind of see that: Madame du P was actually essential to the plot as herself, while Dickens' gas attack on the Gelth could have been done by anyone, and the Queen didn't actually do anything! TGITF had a very different feel to it.--Rambutan (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not disagreeing that TGitF isn't a celebrity historical, I'd argue that Queen Vic did plenty. She set up Torchwood! --GracieLizzie 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What's not celebrity historical about TGITF? She was well-known during her time, and is considered a major historical figure now; the action in the episode took place in her time, fitting in with known aspects of her life (ie not fantastical). And, most convincingly, The Doctor certainly considered M du Pompadour a celebrity! "I just snogged Madam du Pompadour!" has to rank as one of the most excited/impressed statements the Doctor's made (and it was not the kiss, but her identity that impressed him). I would like to see a reliable source discount it as a celebrity historical. Gwinva 16:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well RTD talks about the celebrity historicals here and he doesn't mention Madame P. Also, the Doctor is expected to be more familiar with History than your average viewer, as his a time-traveller and such as I said she is well known enough for many people have heard of her but she's not as "household" a name in Britain as Shakespeare, Dickens, or Queen Victoria... whereas in France she probably is, but she isn't in the program's country of origin. GracieLizzie 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it has a little more to do with the context in which the character is met. Dickens was met in his time period and the baddies fit in the time frame, i.e. ghosts. Victoria was her time period,and the baddies were monks and werewolves. Here, Shakespeare will be in his time period and against witches, not out of place at all. But Madame de Pompadour was technically met through a link int he future. It had a bit of a grounding in history, but the overall story was more future sci-fi than historical. She was met through a spaceship from more than three thousand years in the true, and the baddies were robots from said future. It just doesn't feel as historical as the others do. Of course I could be completly off track, but that is the only real difference I can see. Or maybe Russ just wants to be a jerk to Steve. TheGreenFaerae 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I reckon The Girl in the Fireplace balances its historical & futuristic elements very elegantly. Although there are sci-fi futuristic elements (deep space, starship, robots etc.), Moffat makes the robots an advanced form of clockwork (which resonates beautifully with the 18th century's state-of-the-art technology), making the foes as apt as the others you mention. Also, Renette is FAR better fleshed out as a character than the pretty standard Queen Victoria of Tooth & Claw, especially as you see the young girl's life unfold and progress through the narrative device of the time jumps. Vivamancer 09:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, personally, I believe Girl in the Fireplace was the best episode of the new series, I was just saying that was the only differences I saw between them and Russel's "official" celebrity historicals. TheGreenFaerae 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Seems like there's a certain potential for confusion between "Celebrity Historical" as the name for a Dr Who sub-genre which Russell T Davies credits himself with inventing and "Celebrity Historical" as a Dr Who plot which involves a well-known historical figure. So, Davies is thinking of "Unquiet Dead, Tooth and Claw, Shakespeare Code" as his "Celebrity Historical" trilogy, to go along with his "Year Five Billion" trilogy, "End of the World, New Earth, Gridlock". But I'd agree with those who argue that Mme Pompadour is certainly as significant a personality as Victoria, Dickens and Shakespeare. I'd suggest the *article* count Girl in the Fireplace, but references to "three celebrity historicals" only when quoting Davies directly. PaulHammond 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Face of Boe

This isn't definite yet but the rumors are that Face of Boe will tell his big secret in this episode, although im not sure how that would fit into this plot

--Wiggstar69 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely Episode 3, sorry. Episode 3 (or possibly "Flesh and Bone") is set in New New York on New Earth, the last place we saw the Face of Boe. We have been given no evidence that he can temporally travel so we must assume he is still there. Also in the new 20-second trailer, he can be seen with the Doctor, sandwiched between footage that is clearly set on New Earth. Clockwork Apricot 13:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Good, that make more sence, I couldn't really see how it would fit into this episode.--Wiggstar69 14:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Smeggles has added some great pictures on the different pages, although this particular one isn't as good as the one before it of William Shakespeare, if anyone thinks the same please say.--Wiggstar69 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Shakespeare picture is better than the Lilith one: the episode is called "The Shakespeare Code", not "The Lilith Code". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

...and the name "Lilith" hasn't been confirmed.--Rambutan (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast names

Now, those names have been being posted - unsourced - by various users for a long time (I mean Lilith, Dick and Kemp). However, the preview at Freema'as fansite gives the names of them as: Lilith (the youngish one), Doomfinger and something I can't catch. Does the preview count as a source?--Rambutan (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The other one was Bloodtide or something to the like... i taped it so i'll give it a rewatch later... --Sekhmort 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the person who shouts "Author" after Martha played by Rowan Atkinson? Looks and sounds awfully like him... 66.30.3.0 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare References

With regard to 'Outside References', as there were so many references to Shakespeare plays, how about listing them in a sub-section here, titled someting like 'Shakespeare Plays'.Wolf of Fenric 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been done, pretty much as I wrote that.Wolf of Fenric 18:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this one:
*The mad architect in 'Bedlam' Bethlem Royal Hospital is an allusion to Tom o'Bedlam from King Lear.
Beyond the obvious I don't see the connection, and the obvious is a basic fact of Elizabethan London; mad people went to Bedlam. Daibhid C 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for querying this, Daibhid. To make the allusion less tenuous & speculative: Tom o'Bedlam is a famous character from King Lear, hence the explicit reference to Bedlam (as well as givng the hospital its name). Peter Street's mode of speech (referring to himself in 3rd person, AND calling himself 'Poor Peter') clearly echoes the lines from Lear. I've updated the point to make this clearer. Vivamancer 21:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the name "Bedlam" originates from the Shakespeare character. Bethlam hospital was a real place, and the word derives from a corruption of that name. In fact, since according to the Wiki-article Bethlem_Royal_Hospital the place was functioning as a mental hospital since the 15th century, it's more likely Shakespeare took the name of his character from the name of the hospital rather than t'other way around. PaulHammond 15:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The noun 'Bedlam' predates Shakespeare, as did the name 'Tom o'Bedlam'. There's also an anonymous poem, written circa 1600: Tom o'Bedlam. My point is that the Who episode visits the Bedlam and the madman (Peter Streete) to allude to Tom o'Bedlam in King Lear, & to show another way that Shakespeare's adventure with the Doctor inspires his subsequent writing. Vivamancer 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, now the "poor Tom"/"poor Peter" similarity's been pointed out, I agree. Daibhid C 20:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity: Queen Elizabeth I

The Doctor recognises Elizabeth, and she recognises him, greeting him with hostility and demanding his death. The Doctor doesn't know why, as he "hasn't met her yet". Presumably this references a future adventure, perhaps in Series Four (as Elizabeth recognises the Tenth Doctor specifically, not a later regeneration). It should perhaps be mentioned, but since it references an adventure that has not appeared, and indeed may not appear, I'm not sure of the best way to add it to the article. Kelvingreen 18:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps when talking about the "celebrity historicals" in the continuity section, it could be mentioned that a future adventure with Elizabeth I is very probable given the ending of this episode. And knowing RTD, it will almost certainly be in next year's series. U-Mos 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But it's not confirmed as a planned production, even if it has been confirmed "in-story" as a future adventure. In other words, the Doctor has said this adventure will happen, but RTD hasn't yet. So a particularly literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies would probably count it as speculation, which is why I haven't added anything. Kelvingreen 21:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally think it's far more likely that this was just a throwaway cameo that won't be followed up on. David 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely. I'm told that RTD and the Who office keep a tight rein on references to other adventures and events, for whatever reason, but likely because they might want to use them later on. If they included such an obvious reference to an adventure featuring such a notable figure, I don't think it's likely that it'll be ignored. The source for this, such as it is, is comics creator Richard Starkings, who mentioned the story potential of a previous "throwaway" line (one about a drop of the Doctor's blood changing the world), to a friend involved in the production of the show, as a good story idea, only to be told it had already been filed away for potential future use. If they noted that, then I'm sure they made a note of a potential Doctor/Elizabeth I adventure. But again, since there's no confirmation from RTD that this will happen, it's speculation for the moment. Kelvingreen 11:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic screwdriver

Is this the first new series episode that doesn't feature the sonic screwdriver? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

actually in this episode the doctor has a toothbrush from venus your right he doesnt use the sonic screwdriver in this episode.--Lerdthenerd 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I might have just missed it but I don't think he does use the sonic screwdriver here and I can't think of any other episodes where he doesn't use it. It might be worth checking out before adding but it seems likely, and worth noting in the article, if correct. Corbo 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and homosexuality - historically accurate?

OK, it's probably fair to say that a story which has Shakespeare fighting against witches and aliens isn't exactly striving for accurate historical reconstruction :-)

Even so, I have to wonder whether the sexual and racial attitudes of this era were portrayed accurately. Martha was called some "politically incorrect" names, but none of the contemporary characters in the episode expressed any racist views. Elsewhere, black people were shown walking around London unchallenged, and mixing freely with white people. If this depiction was in any way accurate, it would imply that British society was actually much more racist in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries than it was in the 16th, which I find very difficult to believe.

Many people believe Shakespeare was bisexual. However, in this episode he is portrayed as openly bisexual - he flirts with the Doctor in a public place. Would such behaviour really have been tolerated in Elizabethan London, or would he have had to keep his sexuality a secret? Given that homosexuality was illegal until as recently as the 1980s in some parts of the British Isles, I doubt that people back in the 1590s would have been so tolerant. 217.155.20.163 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that first thing, but the second might involve William being aware of the fact that the Doctor is from another planet, and thus possibly being aware of the fact that he and Martha are more tolerant. --Quadratus 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And about the first thing, it could be entirely possible that they just happened to go by mostly un-noticed. --Quadratus 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to think the default rule for Dr. Who/Torchwood is if someone COULD be bisexual, then they ARE bisexual, and it's always okay and cool to be that way no matter the setting. Still it's just fictional fantasy. If that's the only hang up I have to deal with from Russell T. Davies in his generally incredible job as EP, it's one I can live with for some good sci-fi. Besides I don't even think they're going for 'historically accurate' as much as 'somewhat historical but mostly enjoyable to watch'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi, it's pretty clear from most recent studies of the period that late Elizabethan England (and indeed that of a hundred and fifty years before) is more tolerant of alternative sexualities, and blatantly less racist in a modern sense, than that of two or even three hundred years later. In terms of gender and/or sexuality, I'd suggest Robin Hedlam-Wells' excellent "Shakespeare on Masculinity" anything by Isabel Davis ("Writing Masculinity in the late middle ages" say) and David Riggs' brilliant biography of Christopher Marlowe as places to start. There are no laws against homosexality in Elizabethan England (only against 'sodomy' which isn't actually the same thing at all if you think about it, and people are very rarely prosecuted for that anyway and most times when they are it involves women) and several of Shakespeare's own sonnets are explicitly and undeniably addressed to a male lover, or at the very least to a man the author (or author's male persona at any rate) admires in an erotic sense. Check out Marlowe's 'Hero and Leander' for more of this and also consider that social convention of the time would expect two people of the same gender sharing lodgings (roomies in yer modern sense) to share a bed as well. In terms of racism, well, basically European ethnic based prejudice is, broadly speaking, a product of and/or excuse for Imperial pretensions, rather than the other way around. There's plenty of evidence of people of Afro-Carribean descent in London of this period, but virtually none of racism. Anti-semitism, yes, anti-Catholicism, yes, but not racism. The prejudices of the Elizabethan topos are grounded in religion not in what we'd now call ethnicity. Again, a lot of Shakespeare's sonnets are explicitly addressed to a black woman (and people who don't buy that, read sonnet 130 and try and find any other remotely sane interpretation of it) and there's plenty of contemporary documentation concerning, say, Moorish ambassadors and their staffs from about that time. Sexual contact between a white man and a black woman (or vice versa) was a lot more socially acceptable in 1590s England than 1930s America. Honest.

Sorry, my name should have gone under that JIM User: "The" Jim Smith

Keep in mind that in Elizabethean England, one would hardly have to be black (that is being from or having ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa) to be classified as "dark." Moors, though generally portrayed by black actors when plays like Othello and Titus Adronicus are performed today, are really North Africans)-- so of generally Arab or Berber origin (and possibly even Spaniards or Sicilians-- since the Moors had a substantial presence in those parts of Europe.) The "Dark Lady" of the Sonnets could have been of any ethnicity so long as she was darker than the average English woman (perhaps not due to ethnicity, but even a skin condition). Of course, to the terribly curious Shakespeare, Moors would be a subject of exoticism.
I would have to concur that there is a lot of clear same-sex eroticism in the Sonnets-- and contemporary readers were fully aware of that-- it's the prudery of the 19th and 20th centuries that make it so shocking to us that men of the era loved one another. Sexuality wasn't really a subject of public debate or policy until the 19th century, it was a personal matter, only becoming a public matter if one behaved in a scandalous manner.IanThal 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
<< Again, a lot of Shakespeare's sonnets are explicitly addressed to a black woman (and people who don't buy that, read sonnet 130 and try and find any other remotely sane interpretation of it)>> Sorry, I don't see this. I had to look up the sonnet, which I never heard before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet_130) But the interpretation seems pretty clear. It goes: "my love's lips are not redder than coral, nor are her cheeks redder than roses, her hair is black and wiry, her skin is not whiter than snow, and her breath does not resemble perfume, but I still love her anyway." It's a long way from that to saying she's black. Maybe you are thinking of a different sonnet? Harry Mudd 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Harry (nice handle), in the context of the kind of poem this is, the meaning is pretty clear 'dun' is a word meaning 'very dark brown' and things such as reversing the traditional adjectives applied to beauty in love poetry of this period (coral isn't red, and someone whose lips aren't redder than coral doesn't have pink lips at all, while the 'black wires grow on her head' is pretty clear) are done for a very specific purpose. In a broader context 130 is part of a sequence about a black woman/women and some are more explicit (132) in part reads "Then will I swear that Beauty herself is black/And all they foul that they complexion lack". Other sonnets (in 131) see the poet struggling with the vocabulary based joke that fair (meaning pale) and fair (meaning beautiful) were synonymous in English. You're free to disagree with the 'Dark Lady' theory but to do so does go against the bulk of scholarship relating to these poems, honed against peer review over a very long time. User: "The" Jim Smith
I was thinking of Sonnet 130. While I do think it possible that the "Dark Lady", were she inspired by a real person, was of black (i.e. Sub-Saharan African ancestry) but I also caution that from the point of view of an Englishman of the 16th century, people of North African or Middle Eastern ancestry: Arabs, Berbers, Moors, Jews, and some Spaniards and Sicilians would appear much as Sonnet 130 describes. Keep in mind that Mister Shakespeare was not beyond using some hyperbole (especially when insisting that he was avoiding doing so.) We will unlikely ever discover the Dark Lady's identity, so the point of speculation should not be to push forward one's own pet theory but entertain plausible hypotheses and perhaps explore how attitudes about race and ethnicity were very different in another era. Meanwhile, I'm perfectly happy with the conceit that in the Doctor Who Universe, the Dark Lady is a time traveler named Martha Jones.IanThal 20:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I can see that point, I just think that the vocabulary rules it out. I like the conceit that it's Martha too but would personally argue that whether the Dark Lady is a real person/people or not they deal, publically, with an attraction to someone who is ethnically different to the writer - and that that's a lot of the point of the poems. It's not a pet theory of mine, either, but the fully mainstream position on these extraordinary works. This is my area though. If I were peddling pet theories I'd be talking about how 'Lear' is a series of experiments in staging, but that's even more off topic! My essential point was, and is, that it terms of race & sexuality the episode is in line with the most up to date, research-heavy, academic opinions of the era and that the writer clearly knows this. User: "The" Jim Smith

Nice to be backed up on the same-gender thing, ta. Re: the Spainish/or skin condition ideas behind the Dark Lady, I am aware of these as ideas but am of the opinion that some of the vocabulary of the Dark Lady sonnets, (the use of the colour/adjective 'dun' [which from the context of other uses really is too dark to describe someone of Spainish descent, it would be like describing a spainish person's skin as 'black' in twentieth century parlance, just something that wouldn't really happen]) in 'Nothing like the sun' for example, or the 'black wires' of the same sonnet and the explicit use of 'black' in 132) would seem to rule that out. In my opinion, naturally. In 'The Merchant of Venice' the Prince of Morrocco with his 'burnished' complexion is the only one of Portia's suitors she' at all attracted to, after all, saying "Yourself, renowned prince, then stood as fair As any comer I have look'd on yet For my affection". Blah blah blah. But I suspect I'm heading off topic wildy now. User: "The" Jim Smith

It's just as well not to take these things seriously. It's a work of fiction and the view of Elizabethan England is intended to be amusing to, and palatable to, a modern audience. Its resemblance to actual historical events or situations is no more accurate than any other historical drama. Including those of Shakespeare. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The point was merely that the first correspondant indicated that "If this depiction was in any way accurate, it would imply that British society was actually much more racist in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries than it was in the 16th, which I find very difficult to believe" and I was attempting to demonstrate that while they may find it difficult to believe, the best and most up to date scholarship of the period would demonstrate that it was the case. User: "The" Jim Smith
From what I've read, I gather that the Roman Empire had more enlightened racial and sexual attitudes than the 18th and 19th centuries, also. Considering that the north African provinces were amongst the oldest parts of the Roman Empire (ancient "Africa" corresponds roughly with modern day "Libya" IIRC), and that a variety of mediterranean/arabic/north african types would have held high social positions in the Empire, while the "barbarian" slaves which were entering the Empire at a slightly later date would have been the blond-haired nordic/germanic types from beyond the empires boundary, this shouldn't be all *that* surprising. PaulHammond 15:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, the Roman Empire's attitudes towards human rights made the 18th and 19th century European attitudes seem positively enlightened. Solving political disagreements through mass extermination was business as usual.IanThal 20:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The clause "if this depiction was in any way accurate" begs the question. It isn't in any way accurate, nor is it intended to be. This is drama, fiction, a work of imagination put on the television screen for the purpose of entertainment. While an effort is made not to egregiously offend popular notions of historical accuracy, it would obviously be impracticable to represent the actual effect in reality of mixing imaginary time-travelling humanoid aliens, modern twenty-first century medical students, blood-curdlingly evil witches, and a setting that, to us, is as distant and alien as the events of the Alexandrian wars were to Julius Caesar. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity/References to Other Stories

Notice that what the younger witch says to the Doctor when she looks into his mind when trying to find out his name; it's a near-perfect match for what Madame de Pompadour said when she looked into his mind. It's that suggestion that he doesn't know his own name, and that something horrible happened which made him forget it. Kelvingreen 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Shape and Number of Sides of The Globe theatre

re. Cosmogoblin's claim: "The original Globe Theatre was not 14-sided; it was in fact either round or octagonal. In contrast, the nearby Rose Theatre was probably 14-sided. This could be a subtle allusion to Rose Tyler; alternatively it could have been a mistake by the writer. There is still no definitive evidence."

The Wiki article on The Globe states (without citation) "The Globe is shown as a round building on a contemporary engraving of London. On this basis, some assume the building was circular, while others favour an octagonal shape. Archaeological evidence suggests the playhouse had twenty sides." Given the dispute, the Doctor's assertion that it had 14 sides may be given the benefit of the doubt? Vivamancer 23:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It just so happens that last week I was in Washington, D.C. and saw an exhibit at the National Building Museum that was on the topic of the Globe Theatre. According to what was presented at the exhibit, scholars are not in agreement as to how many sides the Globe actually had, as contemporary illustrations, archeological evidence, and written records are inconclusive and contradictory. Whether an article says 14, 16, 18, or 20, is likely due to a particular author being certain of their own pet theory.IanThal 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not voodoo doll - it was a poppet!

Please read this page: Voodoo doll#Myths and misconceptions

I think you'll find that those dolls were not Voodoo, there were poppets.

Can anyone else justify this before I am forced to edit this FALSE information? Please? --rjcuk 23:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was a genetic control thingie... shaped like a poppet :) Though your poppet link currently redirects to Paynes Poppets, it should be pointing at poppet. --GracieLizzie 00:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out! Paynes Poppets are very different to the poppet they used. I'm just crazy about this because I studied "The Crucible" by Arthur Miller and they always refer to the dolls as poppets. Anyway... should the article be corrected? --rjcuk 10:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
For accuracies sake yes. GracieLizzie 11:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha! I can confirm the article has been corrected by Me lkjhgfdsa. Thank you! And sorry for shouting on the article earlier. I will promise to keep to the guidelines. --rjcuk 12:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Slight issue concerning the doll. The carrionite uses scissors to cut the doctor's hair. This would not give his genetic code but just his hair. The genetic code would only be found in the root cells of his hair and thus, by cutting it, she would have not gained his DNA for replication. This means that the Doctor should not have been effected by the 'magic'. --DJLangdon 18:51, 12 October 2007 (UCT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.93.38 (talk)
“ Men to Carrionites are nothing but poppets! ”

Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martha's Timeline

I've removed the bit about Martha coming from AFTER Harry Potter #7 was published. According to Martha's Blog she met The Doctor on March 31 2007. This is an official BBC tie in, and represents official continuity.

Dammit, Wiki won't let me post links to blogs, Harry Mudd 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything that isn't televised, regardless of whether or not it is made by members of the BBC, is of debatable canonicity, this website included.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)

Anyway, the blog does not say that she met the Doctor on March 31st. No content "written by Martha" says this. The actual software's machinery has a date, but the software is obviously assuming (for some bizarre reason) that the blog is not set a couple of years into the future. It's just a technical issue rather than a continuital issue.--Rambutan (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

See below, but if you stick with the TV show as your continuity guide, you can work out that Martha and The Doctor meet no earlier than 2008 (no, wait, 2007! oops). But all the Doctor's quip implies is that Martha hasn't read HP7 David 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to this, I've noticed a lot of pages referring to characters such as Professor Lazarus, and the Joneses, all being from 2008, but I still don't think we've had proof of this. What we've seen is still consistent with a date of 2007. David 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter

I've removed this:

  • The Doctor claims to have read the final Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with the implication that it has not yet been released. This indicates that Martha comes from the same time period in which the episode was originally broadcast. However, if Martha and The Doctor's meeting in Smith and Jones was set after the events of The Runaway Bride then that would set this episode in 2008 of the present day timeline, long after the release of the seventh Harry Potter book. Later on, Martha gives Shakespeare the word "Expelliarmus" to complete his witch banishing speech, implying that she is familiar with the Harry Potter books and/or films, although the word is a disarming spell (i.e. 'expel arms', such as a wand) rather than a banishment in Harry Potter.

It appears to be original research based on comparisons of timelines.

In removing the whole thing I may have removed material that could find a place elsewhere in the article, shorn of the speculation about timelines. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the material without the timeline speculation to the References to Other Works section, where "Expelliarmus!" was still mentioned. Vivamancer 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting speculation, but not necessarily so - since I don't recall Martha being incredibly surprised that the Doctor has read HP7 (she knows the Doctor's a time traveller, anyway) - nor do I recall that she said that she *hadn't* read it yet, or that it hadn't yet been published in her time... This was really meant to be a cute reference to the audience, anyway PaulHammond 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: the removed passage, Martha's first meeting with the Doctor doesn't necessarily take place (historically) after Runaway Bride, but it does occur after Christmas Invasion (she mentions something having taken place at Christmas). Rose was in 2005, Aliens of London (and therefore Christmas Invasion) was 2006, so that still puts Smith and Jones firmly in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidhorman (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
Not firmly, but still possibly. And plus, was Rose certainly set in 2005? If it was set in 2004 then it would solve most of the timeline issues which state the episodes occured the years they were broadcast, not one year later. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Da Vinci Code

I've changed this:

The title has a similarity to the book and movie title The Da Vinci Code'

to this:

The title appears to be a reference to The Da Vinci Code'

It's impossible to ignore the fact that nearly ever adult viewer of this episode reading the title will make the association with The Da Vinci Code, and this is almost certainly a deliberate reference. We should stop short of stating that it is a reference, but it's not appropriate to weaken the description to the point of inanity. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Douglas Adams Connection

I haven't put this into the article yet, I want to see what others think. I think I see a connection between this episode and the first Dirk Gently novel. Given Adams' connection to the show, I tend to think it is deliberate. Anyway, Dirk Gently is based partly on City Of Death. But the rest of the story is about a poem (Kubla Khan) that contains dangerous information coded into it's words. The time travelling hero has to erase it, and make sure it is never published. So it becomes famous as a lost piece of literature. What does anyone else think? Deliberate reference, stolen idea, or just coincidence? Harry Mudd 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence. There really is (thought to be) a lost Shakespeare play of that title, and words with hidden power predate Adams by a very long way. Tomsalinsky 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, Tom. (I know you on another forum. I'm the guy that did your quiz for you) I hear what you're saying. but in answer to your points, 1) Yes, there really are references to a lost Shakespeare play by that name. But Kubla Khan really does only exist in fragmentary form. The author was prevented from completing it. 2) Yes, the concept of words having power is an old one. But "influencing a great writer to code the words into a work of literature, which becomes lost" is a very specific use of it. Do you know any other examples besides these two? Harry Mudd 23:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The parallel is certainly closer than just words/rhyme/literature having magical power. In City of Death, DG’s Holistic Detective Agency and The Shakespeare Code, aliens influence the creation of famous works of art by master artists, & exploit them to try & save their people from extinction.
  • In City of Death: Scaroth gets Da Vinci to paint multiple Mona Lisas, intending to sell them to fund 20th century time travel research, which will enable him to stop the Jagaroth ship exploding in the primeval past.
  • In Dirk Gently's convoluted 'interconnected' plot: the Salaxan Ghost tries to posses Coleridge to get Reg to travel back in time in his ersatz TARDIS to prevent the Salaxan lander exploding (a la CoD). Coleridge is too stoned to accomplish this. However, the Salaxan’s tale does surface in the apochryphal full text version of Kubla Khan and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. In the 20th century, Wenton-Weakes reads Coleridge’s poems, whilst under the influence of the Salaxan Ghost, finding loss and desolation in the poetry that resonate with own feelings (especially hatred of a rival who supplanted him). This makes Wenton-Weakes an ‘ideal carrier’ for the Salaxan Ghost, which uses him to persuade Reg & co to travel back in time to prevent the disastrous launch(at the cost of the creation of life on Earth).
  • In The Shakespeare Code, the Carrionites subvert Shakespeare to plant their ‘spell’ in the climax of Love’s Labours Won, recitation of which will free their people from the Eternals banishment.
There is a definite resemblance, & Adams’ work probably did influence Garth Roberts, but IMHO it the parallels aren't clear or straightforward enough to be in the main TSC article.
Vivamancer 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bedlam

I find this hard to credit:

The architect of the Globe whom the Doctor visits in Bedlam is allusion to Tom o'Bedlam in King Lear. The reference to 'Bedlam' makes this clear, as does the fact that Peter Streete talks about himself in third person and calls himself 'Poor Peter' (all of which echo the character and lines from King Lear).

Isn't "bedlam" a reference to the fact that the place was popularly called... "Bedlam"? None of the other details are convincing (is Redvers Fenn-Cooper also a reference to King Lear?). I will remove this if no-one objects.

Yeah, the place was called Bedlam in popular culture of the time. See first entry on Bedlam mattbuck 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This was queried & justified previously. See above. The Bedlam did exist before Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare did include a madman in King Lear, who called himself 'Tom o'Bedlam' (a disguise adopted by Gloucester). Tom o'Bedlam talks about himself in the 3rd person, e.g. "poor Tom's a-cold." This pattern of speech and appending the name 'Poor' to the Christian name (as Street does) is a clear allusion to King Lear. Especially as Shakespeare is shown looking thoughtfully at the madman. I note your comment on RFC, but this episode is about Shakespeare and RIDDLED with allusions to Shakespeare's life, the Chandos portrait, the titles and famous lines & characters from his plays, poems etc.Vivamancer 09:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Is the use of the word "Bedlam" a specific reference to King Lear? No, that's just the name of the hospital. Does the madman in TSC have the same or a similar name to the madman in Lear? No, they are quite different. Is referring to oneself by one's own name peculiarly characteristic to Tom O'Bedlam? No, it is a common way of show ego or madness. Is the adjective "poor" peculiar to the character from Lear? No, it is used quite naturally. I will remove this unless someone can demonstrate a clearer link. Tomsalinsky 20:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Streete was a historical person: the master carpenter who moved the Globe theatre and rebuilt it. Hence his name can't be changed. However, the reference to Bedlam, which in the context of Shakespeare connects with Tom o'Bedlam. Streete's 3rd person self-reference and the 'Poor Peter' phrase all cement the allusion. This has been discussed & peer reviewed above. Vivamancer 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
One person agreed with you, I'm not sure that counts as "peer-review". The name "Bedlam" cannot be changed either, but you seem to think it has been chosen deliberately to echo Lear. Is it not far more likely that both Roberts and Shakespeare were referring to the actual hospital? The third person self-references and the adjective poor are not unique to Lear either. A number of other false references have bitten the dust on this page lately. This should go too, imo. I will remove it unless anyone other than the originator objects. Tomsalinsky 23:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems pretty tenuous to me as well. Where there's this much room for doubt (and no reliable sources saying what the writer had in mind), it's probably better to leave it out. If the character had said "Poor Peter's a-cold!" it might be a different story, but there's nothing that concrete here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mavarin (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
It's gone. Tomsalinsky 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drowning

I've removed this from "References to other Doctor Who stories and episodes":

  • The Doctor states he has never before seen a man die from drowning while on dry land. In fact the Keller Machine operator Kettering "drowns in the middle of a perfectly dry room", with his lungs filled with water, in the Third Doctor story The Mind of Evil. However, the Doctor did not witness the death first-hand, only its aftermath. The drowning in this instance was accompanied by a heart attack from an apparently unrelated cause, which the Doctor mentions when describing the death, making it more unusual.

Why? Because it merely says that the episode contains no such reference. This article would be extremely large if we enumerated everything that hasn't been referenced in the episode. --Tony Sidaway 06:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement is worthy of inclusion, because it documents a substantive continuity error. The Doctor HAS seen a man drown on dry land. It's not a negative reference like saying 'This epsiode doesn't have any Quarks , Zygons, or a glove puppet Loch Ness Monster in it." I've restored the edit, but moved it to general continuity.172.209.52.234 06:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the verb "seen" doesn't actually mean "personally, visually witnessed". It means "encountered" or "come accross at first hand". The article doesn't need to be so short, Tony, that information is taken out. This is an encyclopedia, not a party political meeting. We don't need to remove valid info here.--Rambutan (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If one is arguing that the statement "is worthy of inclusion, because it documents a substantive continuity error", then one is arguing for the inclusion of original research. Original research must not be included in Wikipedia. If the production team publicly says "yes, we screwed up there", then document that, because it will no longer be original research. --Tony Sidaway 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, it's not original research. The Doc said he'd never seen a death like it. He HAD seen a death like it, therefore his statement was erroneous. Erroneous statements such as that constitute continuity errors, thus it is a continuity error.--Rambutan (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't original research, then you can find a reliable source that supports that inference. An edit is original research if (amongst other things):
  • it introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position
The argument that this is a continuity error must have a reputable source. You and I are not reputable sources. The scripts of earlier episodes are primary material and in themselves do not constitute arguments for or against the thesis. Find a reliable source. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring your last comment due to its inherent stupidity, I am going to perform a logical argument. Conclusions unilaterally formed from logical arguments are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.

  1. The Doctor claims never to have seen a person drown on dry land before.
  2. Accepting a generally accepted, broad definition of "seen", the Doctor has seen a person drown on dry land before.
  3. One of those statements must be untrue: they are mutually exclusive.
  4. Statement 2 was proven true in The Mind of Evil.
  5. If statement 2 is true, statement 1 is false.
  6. A clearly false statement on the part of the Doctor is clearly a continuity error.

Q.E.D.--Rambutan (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My above "inherently stupid" argument is a quotation from the No original research policy. Your counter-argument is de facto original research. --Tony Sidaway 07:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In the plot summary, the boy playing the lute is named as Wiggins. Please describe how that is not original research: there is no reliable source clearly stating that the lute-player is Wiggins. It's your argument based on recognition of the actor named in the cast-list.

My point is, that the policy only refers to speculation and wild interpretation. My argument is logical, not original research. OR implies that ten different people doing the same test would come up with ten different conclusions. Logic implies that they all come up the same.--Rambutan (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim that the boy playing the lute is Wiggins, and if the statement isn't sourced it should be removed. --Tony Sidaway 07:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are, I think deliberately, missing my point, which is that the entire plot summary is original research - everything in that episode could be interpreted in 40 or 50 different ways, but the obviously correct way is assumed by all to be true. The same applies. Who says that scripts are primary material and don't constitute arguments? Now, I'm going to organise a vote.--Rambutan (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't do synthesis here. The plot summary is supported by the broadcast material, which will also be available on DVD in a month or two. I say that scripts are primary material because this is a fact. I say that they aren't arguments because they're not, they're scripts. --Tony Sidaway 07:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What the HELL are you talking about, synthesis. What I am saying is: the episode itself could be interpreted in any number of ways, and the plot summary on the page is merely one of them. Thus, it is original research, by your definition. So obviously, the restrictions are more relaxed than you think.--Rambutan (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that we don't do synthesis. This means that if there is any interpretation in the plot summary it can be removed. --Tony Sidaway 07:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, I'll bear that in mind. Right now, I'm going to remove all debatable material from the plot summary. Watch what I'm doing, won't you.--Rambutan (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 07:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you removed the entire plot summary. As someone else has remarked in reverting, you should beware of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. We can disagree with one another without deliberately messing up the article. --Tony Sidaway 08:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't deliberately messing up the article - I was removing synthesis, like you said. What's the problem with that?--Rambutan (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you misunderstood me. Please don't remove the plot summary again. Is that clear? --Tony Sidaway 08:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there must have been a misunderstanding. Please explain exactly what you mean. Is that clear?--Rambutan (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By "synthesis" here I mean something like "a new unified whole resulting from the combination of different ideas, influences, or objects" (Encarta). The plot summary is just a precis of the episode's plot. Those items that I've referred to as synthesis are the introduction of new ideas outside the work, such as the argument that the Doctor's failure to remember an incident from many years ago is a continuity error. If we had a reliable source for the argument, we could describe that argument and cite the source. If we don't, we can't introduce the argument. It would make a very interesting article, suitable for a fan site, but it would not conform to Wikipedia's program to produce a high quality encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 08:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How about saying it's just an error then? Or are you saying that the Doctor's statement is true?--Rambutan (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source saying it's an error, let's put it in and cite the source. Otherwise (especially considering the triviality of the thing) it can be safely left out of the article. It's of absolutely no consequence, a footnote suitable for a fanzine, but not for an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 08:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please pardon me for butting in, but I added the name Wiggins based on the credits and the character's identification in Confidential. Although I don't think anyone called him by name in the episode, that does seem like sufficient sourcing for the name, IMO, quite aside from the issue about The Mind of Evil drowning. On the latter point, I assume the idea here is that although the Doctor makes a statement that is at variance with a past event, the discrepancy can be interpreted in a number of ways, e.g. he didn't remember the incident at that moment, the specifics were different enough that to him it wasn't really the same thing, he didn't actually witness the previous guy spitting up water, etc. We don't have any basis for choosing a "correct" interpretation, so we can't state one. On the real world end of things, it is an error only if the screenwriter and producers didn't remember the incident, and would have changed the reference if they had. If they chose to interpret the similarity as not being similar enough to matter, then it is not an error per se. If there's a published interview in which Gareth Roberts says, "Oops! I forgot about The Mind of Evil!", then it can be cited as a continuity error. But in any case, again IMO, this seems like an improbably huge argument about a very minor point. --Karen | Talk | contribs 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Good, for Wiggins you can cite Doctor Who Confidential. You're broadly correct about the drowning matter, but my main concern here is that it's classic original research, or fan-cruft if you like. It's a trivial continuity error researched by a single person with a gigantic memory or database.
I'd always rather discuss things like this than just redo the removal. It's okay if the current case remains in the article, as long as we've discussed the matter and have all thought about the importance of sourcing and avoiding putting our own ideas into Wikipedia articles. --Tony Sidaway 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who originally put in the basic comment about The Mind of Evil, little realising it would spark off such a heated debate. From little seeds grow great bushfires... anyway, how about this: "The Doctor states he has never seen a man drown on dry land before, though he witnessed the after-effects of a similar event in the Third Doctor story The Mind of Evil." -- that avoids commentary on it being a continuity or memory error. I agree it'd be better if the author said something about it, so watch the message boards... Dave-ros 11:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable compromise. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the following wording: "The Doctor states he has never seen a man drown on dry land before. There was a similar death in The Mind Of Evil but The Doctor did not witness it." Harry Mudd 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote: should the statement about drowning, above, be included?

  • Yes: it's a statement of fact.--Rambutan (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't hold votes on matters like this. I'm happy to have made my point, and I have no intention of removing this myself until we're all agreed that we should do so. --Tony Sidaway 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. We have votes on anything. I'm not prepared to continue this argument. Get someone on your side if you think you're right. Byeee.--Rambutan (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Consensus: "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works." We reach consensus by discussion. --Tony Sidaway 07:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "57 academics just punched the air"

Is it breaking the fourth wall or not? Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's just a common expression. That is, when something becomes verified in one way or another, some people like to say '[The proponents] just punched the air'. DonQuixote 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Never heard it before myself. Ah, thanks for clearing it up >_> Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the modern Doctor Who scripts are deliberately written with a very porous fourth wall. The statement here implicitly assumes unseen viewers (the audience of Doctor Who) and it isn't inconsistent with the house style. See for instance the involvement in recent Who scripts of BBC commentators, television talk show hosts, game show formats, and so on, which are, if not breaking the fourth wall, at least implicitly "playing to the gallery" in a very theatrical manner. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Reference' to the balcony scene

"The minstrel singing below the balcony at the start of the episode is an allusion to the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet."

I've removed this as it seems just too attenuated. There is no singing in the Romeo and Juliet balcony scene, nor any kind of wooing similar to The Shakespeare Code. Juliet is soliloquising without even knowing that Romeo is there. The 'balcony scene' is a stock scenario of Renaissance and earlier romances, and not remotely particular to Romeo and Juliet. (In fact the whole scene is only set on a balcony through theatrical tradition harking back to those earlier romances, since Shakespeare does not specify that it is on a balcony). I think this is case of looking just too hard for references. Peeper 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this removal. There is no reference to the balcony scene here, only a balcony. --Tony Sidaway 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't comment on negative references

I've removed the following section from references.

<< Although the ideas are similar, it is not a reference to the Chaos Theory butterfly effect, which is concerned with the potential of a trivial event (e.g. the beat of a butterfly's wings) to have massive, unpredictable consequences (e.g. a tropical storm). This idea is also explored, although in an entirely different light, in an episode of The Simpsons entitled Treehouse of Horror V. In one of the three stories, Homer invents a time machine out of a toaster, travels to prehistoric times, steps on a bug, and returns to the present time where everything is altered in some way. >>

Don't bother saying that it ISN'T a reference to chaos theory. Don't bother saying what it isn't. Don't mention chaos theory at all. It's irrelevent.

Commenting on the Simpson's episode would be valid commentry for an article on Ray Bradbury. It has no place in this article. This episode references a Ray ?BRadbury story, that should be mentioned. Other stories that reference Ray Bradbury are irrelevant. Harry Mudd 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a 'negative reference'. It's a clarification, distinguishing between the 'stepping on a butterfly' concept and the Chaos theory 'butterfly effect'. Many people (including contributors to this article) commonly confuse them for each other. I agree that the Simpsons example that was appended isn't relevant, though. Vivamancer 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought the idea with the "stepping on a butterfly example" is that to do so would eradicate any potential "butterfly effect" that that particular butterfly could otherwise have caused. So the two seem distinctly related to me. David 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some recent removals

I've removed all three of the following paragraphs because they don't seem to be references.

From References to other Doctor Who episodes and stories:

  • The arrow embedding into the TARDIS's front door at the end of this story is reminiscent of an earlier Seventh Doctor adventure Silver Nemesis when Lady Peinforte shoots an arrow at the Doctor and Ace as they make their escape.
  • The drowning closely resembles the death of Estelle in the Torchwood episode Small Worlds, who is also killed by drowning on dry land, due to an ultra-localised rainstorm.

From References to other works:

--Tony Sidaway 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This is references gone mad! Peeper 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've now also removed this edit for the same reason: it's the same character, reacting similarly in a similar situation. I don't think that this counts as a reference, just consistent characterisation. Peeper 09:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why this was removed? I just watched Silver Nemesis and was considering adding this in myself as it seemed there was a connection here. I am sort of thinking and will suggest that this might fit better on the Gridlock page as it seems to fit better there. I also note that having watched Silver Nemesis and then Shakespeare Code that there is also a line in common where the doctor says to the effect "Act like you own the place and they will ignore you." Said to Ace in Windsor and Martha when they arrive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheepDoll (talk • contribs)
Oh, you're right! I think that's worth mentioning. Andral 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare's appearance

I've amended the reference about the Doctor and Martha's comments on Shakespeare's appearance for these reasons, and invite more comment or further changes which take these into account:

1. Neither the Chandos portrait nor the Droeshout engraving includes a ruff.

2. Martha only refers to "his portrait". It seems entirely possible but pretty unlikely that she is familiar with the Chandos portrait in particular, but more probable to me that it is a general comment on Shakespeare's traditional appearance. (The latter also steers clear of any assumptions or OR).

3. WP does not currently have an article on the mystery of Shakespeare's appearance, which would be the ideal link for this reference. I have used Chandos portrait since it's the closest match and includes some relevant discussion, but I don't think this or Droeshout engraving (note the redlink) is ideal. Any comments? Peeper 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday or the day before that the Chandros portrait article also discusses the Droeshout engraving a little bit, and the lack of a ruff in either likeness. (I'm pretty sure my Riverside Shakespeare has a portrait with a ruff on it or in it somewhere.) That seems to be the best link for now, but the Doctor and Martha are unlikely to be overly concerned with one particular portrait. Is there no discussion of Shakespeare's appearance in his main article? In any case the need to cover this issue in depth (probably a good idea) is a bit beyond the scope of an article about a Doctor Who story. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Martha said portraits. Plural :) Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I thought she might have done, but just wasn't sure. But that does indeed put the old tin lid on it, I feel. Ta. Peeper 09:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sonnet 130 - breath smelling

anyone else think that the comment where martha comments on shakespeare's breath is a vague reference to the comment that shakespeare has on the dark lady's breath 'reek'ing as well - a sort of get your own back? "And in some perfumes is there more delight Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks." it's what i'll be saying to my english group anyhow (they've just done the sonnets and are dr who fans)Crescent 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Sonnet 130 was used in a spoof recently. A rose by any other name would, of course, smell as sweet. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Reek" didn't always mean a bad smell, either. --FOo 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BARB figures

Someone entered the BARB figures and said it was the fourteenth most popular broadcast of that week. BARB's Weekly Viewing Summary has the programme as fifth in the terrestrial top thirty, after four episodes of Eastenders. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "sly reference" to City of Death

I've added a fact from DWM to the Production section about a cut line - originally, the Tenth Doctor said "see you earlier" to Shakespeare, since he's already met him, and because the line itself is from City of Death. I actually added this a few weeks ago, adding "this may be the "sly reference" mentioned above", and it was deleted on the grounds of speculation. I'm wondering, though - with it being such a complex reference, it must surely be the reference they mentioned prior to the episode's airing. Is this a case of stretching Wikipedia criteria to the point of farce? (My favourite thing about Wikipedia is that in the article on hands, someone's actually put a reference after "the human hand contains a palm and five digits". I do wonder whether there was ever a time when it read "there are five fingers on the human hand[citation needed]".)

[edit] Reverting of content

Just to expand upon my edit summary for reverting Digby Tantrum's edit (which was accidentally cut off when I hit Return too soon): there's nothing in the addiions that is OR or any more trivia than material already listed, and one of the edits made was to correct grammar. I put all these back. If an editor feels there's too much trivia in the article then it all has to go, not just one editor's additions. 23skidoo 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the inclusions the IP made was a speculative (and to date, unverifiable) assertion about Tennant's performance as the Doctor ("he acts here as though he is meeting Shakespeare for the first time"), essentially forcing a point of view on the article; it was this I classed as OR. Of the two items of trivia, one (the note of Tennant's involvement with a Harry Potter film) was outside the scope of the article, and redundant in light of the ease with which one can find this info via the link to the article on Tennant; the other was merely (in my view) not noteworthy. Hence, the edits seemed not worth keeping, though I will grant you it was remiss of me not to spot the grammatical correction.
As for your contention that the high presence of "trivia" in the article means one should remove all or none, I'm afraid I'm unsympathetic to this kind of blanket reasoning. Sure, lengthy lists of notes on continuity and cultural references aren't highly desirable in an encyclopedic article, but I'm afraid consensus presently appears against their blanket removal; the best one can do is to take such notes on a case by case basis and judge them in terms of notability and verifiability etc. Mark H Wilkinson 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you regarding the performance and Potter comments. The fact the episode makes explicit references to Potter, and that Tennant's performance in the Potter film was of worldwide notability (not his performance alone, but the fact the film was seen worldwide) make these worth referencing. As for the last comment, I'm pro-trivia myself, however the viewpoint that is starting to dominate in wikipedia is that all trivia must be deleted. That's a blanket attitude that seems to be gaining power here, for better or for worse. 23skidoo 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Tennant's Harry Potter role is well documented in article on the actor, to which this page already links; it's not on topic here. Mark H Wilkinson 16:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It most certain is on topic, and given the fact that Wikipedia policy regarding TV episode articles pretty much demand as much real-world references as possible, linking Tennant to the Harry Potter series is something that cannot be omitted.68.146.41.232 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to the Deathy Hallows

With all references to Harry Potter (possible reference to other authors) is it probable that all hallows street was used as a reference to Harry 7, or just to the holiday All Hallows or All Saints Day. If it were to Potter 7 then surely this all hallows street matches to the book title since only deathly things occur in the witches house.

[edit] Arrows, again

Is there a good reason people want to note superficial resemblances between Silver Nemesis and this episode? Some source out there to say that this is a deliberate link between the two in continuity terms? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a source for it to be a link. It is similar, and thus worth mentioning since it's all Doctor Who. Maybe if the similarity was to an episode of Fawlty Towers that would be different, but within DW it clearly is (off the record) a reference, and worth mentioning in the article even though we don't (on the record) have a source.--Rambutan (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's trivia. Arrows fired at a door which characters have just gone through is so common a meme in visual media that it's very tenuous to claim it's a deliberate reference to any single story, whether it be Doctor Who or not. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It kind of hit exactly the same panel in the TARDIS as last time, and also right at the end of the episode.... I can't see under what policy it's not allowed: it's not WP:NOR, since it's not an unpublished fact or argument (not an argument at all).--Rambutan (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:OR both apply here. Reporting something which could simply be coincidence as a continuity note does put us into original research territory ("I think it's a reference, therefore it is."). Without a source, it boils down to being trivia, which is the sort of thing we ought to prevent the continuity section from turning into. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said it's a reference. I said it happened. And it did. And it's relevant. So OR doesn't apply. And I'm going out now.--Rambutan (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)