Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] sprotect?

Given the frequent additions of plot speculation, the Captain's name, Astrid speculation, TARDIS speculation, iceberg speculation, past Doctors speculation, monsters speculation and, well, have I left anything out? Perhaps we should request semi-protection for a bit. --Karen | Talk | contribs 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing we can't handle (yet). It's only 1 or 2 edits a day. --Edokter (Talk) 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! Whenever I suggested anything of the sort, you all said "No, no, leave all the dirty work to someone else". Go back and read the comments that you personally left.--Rambutan (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal has nothing to do with this issue. Your proposal was to prevent anyone but registered users from updating the page on the day the episode aired, a very unwiki-like thing. This proposal is to deter the rampant speculation in the absence of actual news. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
My proposal was to prevent anyone but registered users from updating the page on the day the episode aired because of the high volume of rampant speculation, actually.--Rambutan (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Rambutan, to whom, exactly, are you replying? Neither Karen nor Edokter left comments on User:Rambutan/Fan-cr!p. Moreover, it's a decidedly incivil response. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, yeah. I didn't understand Rambutan's reply above until I read the comments that followed it. Nor am I suggesting anything long-term, let alone on Christmas Day if that's when it's airing. But the past week or so there have been many attempts to add the various flavors of speculation I mentioned above, to the point where we're probably each doing a couple reverts per day, give or take. That probably won't be the case for long, as the off-Wiki speculation dies down and people start fixating on other things. If you all don't mind reverting the same things over and over, and if we can do so without 3RR issues, then that's fine. I'm just asking the question: is this an appropriate time to semi-protect, when speculation is high and new revelations from the BBC are likely to be scarce on the ground for a bit? That's all it is, a question. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, protection is usually a matter of volume. Right now, it's not too bad. You could make a request, but it wouldn't be up for very long, if at all. If there's 50 some-odd edits in a course of a day, or one persistent vandal, then protection would be more viable. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any admin would protect it. I'll request if you want, just for the amusement.--Rambutan (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus on this one is "no". But thanks for offering. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Okey-doke! No problem! --Karen | Talk | contribs 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to ad a thank you for the thought but that it isn't too bad. I don't know why some folks have to be repeatedly rude and sarcastic about things. Nice idea and politely put across, thanks. AlanD 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red spiky Porg

Hi, I've been deleting all the "Porg" spoilers which were reported here, since the Sun is unreliable. If we are to mention it as a pre-broadcast rumour, it needs to be properly cited.--Rambutan (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Update I'm now at 3RR, so I'd welcome any help!!--Rambutan (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Worry ye not, I'm on duty all evening (BST) and I'm sure I won't be the only one. Besides, you've only made two reverts in the last 24 hours, so you've got one in hand if necessary. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm on call as well... At work with nothing to do. --Edokter (Talk) 18:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - but I've done my three ([1], [2], [3])! Should we put it in "pre-broadcast publicity"?--Rambutan (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Hmm. It's not exactly a big story as yet — only four articles on Google News in comparison with, for example, 164 on Kylie — and there isn't much meat to it (here's a little person in a red mask, smoking a fag, who may or may not be called "Porg" or "the Porg"). Perhaps it's worth waiting to see whether something more comes through? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was only published today. I've added it, but if you feel it is insignificant, feel free to remove it. --Edokter (Talk) 18:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since it contains that photo, I assume that it's actually true, and thus worth listing. If it sounded incredible, then I'd say otherwise. I'll leave the article as Edokter left it (a first time for everything...).--Rambutan (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly a hugely informative article but I quite like the current edit, good comprimise. AlanD 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the discussion page

As has been raised a number of times it isn't really appropriate to edit other peoples' comments on the discussion page based on the fact that you don't like them. This has been argued many times and the consensus and guidance from admin was don't do it. Please refrain from deliberately being disruptive in this way.AlanD 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be deliberately disruptive, and admins don't say not to do it, and even if they did: tough. WP:TALK is very clear.--Rambutan (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added the comments back in that Rambutan deleted. Editing other users comments on the talk page because they are arguing against you is against the spirit of Wikipedia. PaulHammond 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think the comment was arguing against me.--Rambutan (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments not directly related to improving the article are against WP:FORUM and can be deleted according to WP:TALK. Cheers, guys.--Rambutan (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not deleting other people's comments because they are not related to improving the article. You are deleting people's comments because you don't like the fact that they are taking the piss out of a couple of campaigns you have run on this article. I am quite strongly of the opinion that, apart from archiving old discussion when a talk page gets too long, and removing swear words when edit wars have gotten out of hand and BOTH particpants are attempting to calm things down, that talk page comments should never be edited. This isn't a good faith edit from you, Rambutan, this is you using the delete button to try to pretend that you haven't pissed people off. Frankly, I think that if someone could stop you from acting like a prat that WOULD directly improve the quality of this article. PaulHammond 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


btw, here's a little quote from WP:TALK that seems to contradict what you are trying to do here PaulHammond 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
WP Talk isn't as cut and dry as you would interpret it Ram, this has been brought to your attention before by admin. Your interpretation is wrong and your motives in this case were suspect. Just stop doing it and the problem is solved.AlanD 23:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

  • If you have their permission
  • Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
  • Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:CIVILRemoving uncivil comments and WP:ATTACKRemoval of text before removing anything."


and this is what it says on WP:ATTACK under the heading "Removal of text"

"There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited. "

[edit] WP:TALK violations

Right, what's the business with this edit? As far as I see, it's restoring a deleted comment - which was deleted due to its complete lack of connection and value with/to the article. It's not geared towards improving the article.--Rambutan (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the comments made in the section above, on my edit on the history of this Talkpage and on your Talkpage. I am not going to repeat them when you only need to scroll up half a dozen lines. Kelpin 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't seem to understand that it's not relevant to improving the article. While it's arguably marginally relevant to the subject of the article, it's never going to lead to any improvement of the article, and its author didn't intend for it to lead to an improvement of the article.--Rambutan (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinner jacket wearing alien infliatrates the launch party

So says the BBC GracieLizzie 21:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with the BBC :) --Edokter (Talk) 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Words used in the episode

Russell T Davies revealed that this episode contains the words 'host', 'lifeboats', 'trapped' and the sentence, "they think we should be in steerage."

Is this information in any way relevant, apart from the fact that it has been published? I mean, this is something only bored fans would find significant. --Edokter (Talk) 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Its the sort of thing RTD would release when he has nothing significant to release, no its not important enough for this artical.--Wiggstar69 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also RTD can be mischievous with some of these revelations. I remember the Doctor Who Online forum exploded with theories about the Axons in Series 3 when he said in an interview "I've just typed the word Axons" (used in the episode The Sound of Drums). The Axons didn't appear in that episode, and were only mentioned in passing once. Kelpin 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed it. --Edokter (Talk) 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more speculation from The Sun!

The Sun claims a Shakespearian actor is going to appear to doctor who! we should wait until a suitable source publishes this information, don't add it just yet as The sun is not reliable!--Lerdthenerd 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Got a link? — Edokter • Talk • 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

no its only in the newspaper, besides it talks about the future series as a whole not this christmas special. we should wait until we get a reliable source like the BBC.--Lerdthenerd 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberwoman Kylie

I heard Kylie was to play a cyberwoman. No truth in that I suppose? --81.178.67.184 15:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned (as far as I know) by any reliable sources. It may or may not be true but wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we need to leave out speculation until a reliable source (the BBC, Russell T Davies etc) confirms it. Kelpin 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
When The News of the World broke the story of Kylie's casting, they made the assertion she'd be playing a Cyberwoman (presumably from speculation about use of dance costumes which bore resemblance to Cybermen suits in one of her live routines). Later stories point towards Astrid not being a Cyberwaitress. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cribbins has been added to the cast list again but with a source.

Cribbins has been added to cast list but with DWM as a source, does DWM count as good source or should we revert again until we get a better source?--Lerdthenerd 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

someone has put september 19th as a date, doesn't that mean its not out yet--Lerdthenerd 13:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DWM is a good source - its officially sanctioned by the BBC and Russell T Davies writes a column for it. Kelpin 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

thats great:), its just that over the past week people have been adding Cribbins without a source but now we've got a good source it can stay--Lerdthenerd 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Kylie and David image

I have reverted the removal of Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg twice now. This image was uploaded specifically for this page and does not break WP:NFCC in any way. I can't see any reason for it's removal (and yet leaving it on Kylie Minogue). Discussion please. — Edokter • Talk • 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, then maybe you should look into whether the image should be used in the Kylie Minogue article? --212.32.112.152 01:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Edokter, and have restored the photo. It is more appropriate here, and no-one has provided a valid rationale for removing it. --Ckatzchatspy 05:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It does seem like a perfectly reasonable use of the image, as it directly pertains to the written material we have to date. --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should maybe not simply revert each other without explanation, Mark H Wilkinson - that's not like you at all.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 07:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. People have the certain mindset that if the episode has not aired, it doesn't pass NFCC#8, although it's not as clear cut as that. It's fine, seriously. Will (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

Just to let enyone know: I regard reverting edit made by socks (Shingles Drake (talk · contribs) and 77.96.133.241 (talk · contribs)) exempt from 3RR; don't risk being blocked for using socks. — Edokter • Talk • 11:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

Can I just ask why the page is protected?--Wiggstar69 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See above section. Edit war. Will (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New image

here is the link for a possible pic for this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/homepages/images/advent07.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.185.131 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that at least two people really like the new publicity photo (in one form or another) and want to put it into this article. Thing is, we just went through problems keeping the previous one on here. It's not so easy, folks; there are fair use guidelines to be followed, along with Wikipedia formatting guidelines. You can't just plop in a link to an off-Wiki image. It doesn't show up. If people want to change the image, let's discuss it and do it right. Don't just add it haphazardly, because it doesn't work that way. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavarin (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just becuae there's a new picture out, doesn't mean we have to put it up. As Mavarin said, it took a lot of discussion just to keep the current image, so let's not spoil that by cycling through new images (thereby orphaning the original image)... or we could end up with no image at all. — Edokter • Talk • 11:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Edotker we don't want to lose the current image again. Mind you that image looks cool! I just want to ask who are those angel aliens in the background? They look very sinister!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer the second image, as it not only shows the principal cast members but also a background related to the substance of the episode: the current image is simply a rather dull "wooden room" scene! I don't see how we'd be causing fair use difficulties - they're both simple promo pics, and surely we could just use the same licensing details?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea too, but lets stick with the old picture now to avoid creating another edit war. By the way Porcupine do you think the angel aliens resemble the Fendahl from Image of the Fendahl, because I thought when I saw that picture I thought "they look just like the fendahl!"--Lerdthenerd 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually like something like this: http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff237/gremlins225d/titanic550.jpg to be the image. GracieLizzie (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that picture does look suitable for the article but there's all the fair use policies--Lerdthenerd (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A former doctor?

A few weeks back, there were well-substantiated rumours that we'd be seeing an old Doctor. Given that both the 9th and 4th have good reasons for appearing on the Titanic, it seemed plausible. However, shortly thereafter, we saw the 5th in Time Crash, and it's a pretty good bet that that's what the rumours were actually referring to....

So, is it worth tracking down these rumours and mentioning them in the pre-show publicity, or are they not relevant outside of the few days of their lifespan and therefore not encyclopaedic? --75.36.139.20 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really - Information will be deleted unless it has a source, and rumours don't fit that criteria. StuartDD contributions 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prepare for Adventure

That's the slogan for a new promotional picture of the episode on the Doctor Who web site. It makes a big deal of December 1st. I'm not sure what date it was added on, which is a shame, as Wikipedians would want that to be mentioned if this particular form of pre-broadcast publicity were mentioned in the article at all. SHOULD it be mentioned? I know that saying anything about Axons would be a resounding no - I agree that that violates stuff. However, mentioning this publicity seems appropriate. I suggest adding it to the section on pre-broadcast publicity. I know all abut being bold, so really the reason I'm putting it here is in case anyone knows the date. I won't wait though - they can always add it later. If anyone really objects to it going up, fine, delete it, complain on the talk page blah blah. I'll just go do it now. I wonder what we have in store in two days' time ... probably some Advent calendar style thing with a new picture everyday. I shan't say that in the article though ... not until we actually know. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been there for about two days, but there's nothing really to report yet, so nothing to add here. In a few days it will be 1 December, though, so there may be something worth mentioning at that point, once the BBC puts up more than an intriguing photo! --Karen | Talk | contribs 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Edokter deleted it as speculative. That's definitely true of the Axons comment that someone insisted despite my warning. Whether Edokter also thinks my part was speculative I don't know - perhaps thinking that Advent is stressed for emphasis with a different colour is thinking what you don't know. Nah, that's taking OR too far. As for it not being newsworthy ... well, we'll wait until tomorrow, because then I'll be fine. Well, actually, my internet access might not be that good tomorrow, plus I won't be at this IP anyway. Someone's bound to add it though. BTW, it seems it went up on the 27th. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The BBC releasing a picture is certainly not newsworthy. And what will probably happen on Dec 1st is an online advent calander (they had one last year as well). — Edokter • Talk • 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Did they? Fair enough. It's anonymous old me again. I still think that there is *one* reason it's newsworthy: it reveals that the Porg is not the only "significant" life-form the Doctor is encountering in the episode. Of course, they might be as straightforward as some humans who love to dress up, but plotwise they won't be a red herring either. Still though, no doubt whatever there is to it will be reiterated with some actual words in due course anyway. 85.92.173.186 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have a source for the Porg yet, do we? It's just one of those "Sun" stories that's got a 50% chance of turning out to be made up! Furthermore, the slogan doesn't appear to apply to the episode; the date given is today's, which is the day that the advent calendar starts. The "advent" section of "adventure" is highlighted, so there's no reason to suppose that it pertains to the episode at all, adventurous as it will surely be...--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think semi-protection is a mistake

The only reason anyone wanted this page semi-protected, as far as I can tell - the Wikipedian who did this explained it only in his edit summary, not here on the talk page - is because of all these Axons comments. I notice that semi-protecting the page didn't stop someone else then adding such stuff. Does that mean I'm calling for full protection? No. I'm actually calling for full unprotection. Why? Because the occasional removal of such vandalism, and using 3RR, are enough, and better supplements to the new hidden text than what has been done here. Of course, you're all free to disagree with me. I do have one more thing to say, though: the golden angels do deserve some kind of mention in pre-broadcast publicity, because they have now appeared not only online, but also in a "The one for christmas" advertisement on the BBC. (That happened yesterday, immediately after an extended episode of Have I Got News For You.) If anyone who still thinks it should be semi-protected at least thinks the angels should be mentioned, please feel free to save me registering. 85.92.173.186 16:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your problem with this, but I'm actually greatly in favour of restricting anon access in general. There has been so much speculative material and other unacceptable stuff posted on that page recently that it's taken a lot of time away from valuable editors who could be doing something much more constructive than deleting the word "Porg" when it was placed next to a sign saying "Do not type the word Porg here". This time-wasting disruption (and it is disruption when as blatant as that) will only increase with the media leaks and inventions that are bound to begin appearing in our fabulous press :D And, I'm afraid it's got to be said, most (at least 75%) of this stuff comes from IPs. Full-protection isn't a good idea, since most of the worthwhile contributions come from registered users, most of whom aren't admins, but since most of the poor material comes from IPs, I think that semi-protection is very apt.
Actually, the protection will automatically come down about 3-5 hours after the end of the episode. I'd like to suggest that the protection extend at least 24hrs after the end of the episode, as it is this aftermath period that yields the most unacceptable material. If the protection doesn't change, I'd like to suggest a template at the top of the page, reminding IPs and registered users alike to spell correctly, use grammar and apostrophes correctly, read WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:VER and generally remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a chat room. Sorry if this sounds blunt :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the semi protect - it was getting annoying with a whole load of un-sourced info going in. StuartDD contributions 13:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 75 minutes?

Some Christmas TV guides are giving an unconfirmed timeslot of 75 minutes for the special, and Kylie's said on the radio about the cut being too long but the BBC not reducing the length, apparently. Can somebody pick an Xmas TV guide up or see if the interview is still up on the BBC website and confirm these?It takes ages to find a free username 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There won't be confirmed schedules for Christmas Day out until about the 4th or 5th of December.I'm sure someone will check it at that point .Garda40 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
To check out the Kylie interview we need to know what programme it was .Garda40 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Christmas Special is going to be 71 minutes long. The relating article is here... http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/12/04/51236.shtml . However, I don't know how to insert those little appendices into the article... :-( Blaine Coughlan (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It was put into the article yesterday.Garda40 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. That was me from my computer at work!! I just don't know how to do those little numbers like this... [1] to link to a "reference" at the bottom! Blaine Coughlan (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cutting down the cast notes

Do we need all the cast notes? It is a bit too long just now. Which ones can we get rid of? StuartDD contributions 12:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Witchell & IMDB

An editor has added Nicholas Witchell to the cast list, using IMDB as the source. Would this be the same IMDB that has been, in the past, responsible for such scoops as Norman Lovett appearing as Davros in the finale of Christopher Eccleston's season? The same IMDB that credited Kevin Eldon for the role of "Bad Wolf" in the episode "Bad Wolf"? The same IMDB that had Captain Jack Harkness appearing in season 2? 62.164.250.156 (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out.--Wiggs (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. But stranger things have happened. I mean, the Titantic is lumped on a spaceship flying through space on the trailer, so anything could be going on... But I take your point on IMDB not always being reliable. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Christmas Radio Times is out! Nicholas Witchell is in it! Yeah! Wolf of Fenric (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
An additional source is the photo gallery behind the 10 on the advent(ure) calendar. --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] synopsis

where does the synopsis come from - I checked the source and it doesn't cover it. StuartDD contributions 16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft. I've restored it. (Had to dig deep in the history.) — Edokter • Talk • 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
On the publisity advert the titanic is a floating spaceship with modern techonology suggetsing its not the origional titanic.--Wiggs (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't say it is the original Titanic, just "the Titanic". — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that the Earth Heritage Society (or whatever it was from The End of the World) have restored the original Titanic for space-flight. So it still could be the Titanic. Stephenb (Talk) 11:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't reference 6 ([4]) state that it is THE titanic in 1912? StuartDD contributions 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but for all we know whoever wrote that article could have been misinformed. I took it as verbatim at the time but it is looking increasingly like I was mistaken to do so. --GracieLizzie (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"In 1912, an alien menace infiltrates the launch party for the famous ship." The ship is floating in space, I really don't think its the 'origional' ship, the report that sources this statement was written months ago on a tangent issue and the writer could have simply thaught it would have been the actual titanic.--Wiggs (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've read the article in the latest DWM, and it specifically states it is not THE titanic. StuartDD contributions 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Following that revelation, I've removed the bit from the "Titanic and Doctor Who" section saying it marks the ship's first proper appearance in the series. Daibhid C (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, could we maybe lose the whole section about the titanic? StuartDD contributions 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Just leave it for now until it airs. For all we know, it could be the Titanic restored and modified into a spaceship...or not. We won't know for certain until it airs. DonQuixote (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the section on the titanic should stay, even though its not the real tianic, the titanic has an obvious influence to stories over the years and this story in particular.--Wiggs (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nathan tyson has added the synopsis again should i revert?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast notes / Jimmy Vee

It's hardly worth mentioning all of his Who-credits. He's their little person. Done. Might as well mention that David Tennant's played the Doctor in <insert list of 10th Doctor episodes here>, right? --Johan (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, there aren't very many actors who regularly appear but as different characters. That's the interesting bit :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] changing of the picture

Porcupine has just reverted someone for changing the picture so can everyone discuss the change of picture first before we end up with another edit war.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll support any good-quality picture with a proper fair-use rationale. Seriously, is that so hard to do? Will (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There will always be others wanting to change to yet another, "better" image. So far, we had the angel picture, yet another David & Kylie picture, and now the flying Titanic. We can't have them all... using one will orphan the others and be deleted, so best is to stick with one. So yeah, in that respect, it is hard to do. — Edokter • Talk • 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
All the images uploaded for this page except for the recent publicity shot had no rationales at all. Will (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The current picture is fine - there is no need to change it just now. StuartDD contributions 11:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree don't change it now but i still think the angel picture was cool!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

,

[edit] Murray Gold cameo

SFX interview with producer Phil Collinson:

I know there's another one of [composer] Murray Gold's original songs as well. What context does that pop up in?
"It's one of the songs that the singer is singing in one of the big sequences in the ballroom – we have a singer and we have a band playing. And Murray is actually in the show, so spot him if you can!"

So, cameo/appearance by Murray Gold. 212.32.68.78 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the source - that's all we were asking for. WP:V,WP:RS. StuartDD contributions 11:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome, though it's been removed again. If it goes back in, it might be good to be vague about the credit (someone had put it as "Murray Gold — Himself"), since we don't know the nature of the appearance (band member? cruise guest? someone who buys a paper from Bernard Cribbins character?). 212.32.68.78 (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I'll put it in cast notes. StuartDD contributions 13:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. However, it appears to have gone again. If I understand the edit history, since being removed from the cast list by Wiggstar69, you (StuartDD) put it in the cast notes, then Garda40 moved it back into the cast list, then Edokter reverted it back to your version, and then Garda40 decided Gold should go altogether -- which is odd, seing as Garda40 put it in last night after I brought up the interview on this page.
Is getting a short note about a Murray Gold cameo into the article meant to involve all this? 212.32.68.78 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I realised that Edokter had a valid point about whether he was actually part of the cast or just someone who happened to be in the shot , like real people who have appeared in the background of movies etc ( an example of this is the The Grudge where street scenes were filmed in the streets of Tokyo ) and we won't know the circumstances of his appearance for another week .I suppose mention could be made in a section about music in the episode .Garda40 (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
To IP - Different users have different ideas - I put it in the cast notes after you pointed out that we don't know the nature of his role.
To Garda - Since we don't know the nature of his role, only that he will make a cameo, I thin the cast notes section is probably the best place for it. StuartDD contributions 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)