Talk:Planet of the Dead

Air Date

BBC Website as confirmed that the episdoe will be shown during the easter period, But at present the date is not confirmed {Ucebaggie (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)}.

Nymons

On the bbc doctor who adventure calander , in an interveiw with Russell, he mentions nymonds in the easter special. There was a nymon in the horns of nymon. Is ts true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.181.122 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Horns of Nimon is mentioned - although I think it was linked more with a "two part climax to the specials", in a discussion with Judie Gardner and RTD. Interview can be found here. Edgepedia (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

'Professor' Malcolm

Lee Evans referred to his character as a professor on a UK TV show, but the video is posted on a blog so I am unsure whether it can be used as a ref. Here is the link [1], I'll let more enlightened minds decide. magnius (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs editing due to new development

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No changes required to the article as a result of the development. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I am new at editing, so I am just posting this to make others aware so they can edit the article. It is possible that the Easter special may be postponed as the Double Decker bus, which is integral to the storie's plot, has been irreperably damaged in transport to the filming location (rumored to be Dubai). BBC has reportedly made the decision to rewrite the plot to allow for the now unusable bus as transportation costs to get a new doubledecker to the filming site are too high. Here is the source: <http://io9.com/5139062/doctor-whos-new-vehicle-has-already-crashed>

Thank you for abiding my noobness, Alteran1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alteran1 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that they will postpone it, the rewrites will keep it on schedule magnius (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Davies had to rewrite a few chunks of the series four finale (most notably, the Shadow Proclamation scene and Davros' origin story) while filming was on the way. That, and if filming started a week ago, I doubt he had it finished by Christmas anyway :P. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. At the moment to me this looks like just rumours on blogs. Anyone have a reliable source on this? I have noticed it has been mentioned that this special may not be shown at Easter (the latest BBC press release as 'spring' as the date), but I was thinking that this was just the BBC trying to stop ITV putting something on at the same time. (after edit conflict) Edgepedia (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a brief SFX interview confirming the Dubai shooting and a Daily Telegraph story on the bus damage; both cited in the production note I have added to the article. -- Guybrush (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of development: The BBC released a new video. It contains a quick clip of the script. No chance of some of our more technical-minded editors zooming in somehow is there? Just a though, ;) --Cameron* 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The script at about 1:57 is the EP15 shooting script, and says

A marble plinth, ....
medieval drinking cup. ....
gli???? ???els. This is the CUP ....

                  SECURITY CHIEF (CONT'D)
          And, activating

He throws a big lever on the wall.

FX: there are four free-standing poles in a square around
the plinth, and from them, a FENCE OF BLUE LASER BEAMS
activates. Low hum of power. The square of guards are
standing outside the fence, all facing out.

                  SECURITY CHIEF (CONT'D)
          Night then, boys.

He leaves. Footsteps echoing. The door shuts, SLAM!

Silence. Guards on duty.

PAN up the room, from the PLINTH & FX BEAMS, to...

The ceiling. A panel slides open, silently -

However the last four lines are blurred, deliberately I would suggest. Edgepedia (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And as it seems to start with Christina de Souza on a jewellery heist, it does sound as if this is very early in the episode. Edgepedia (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're a genius! Thanks!! ;) --Cameron* 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's speculation. After seeing this edit [2] I realised that this could be near the end, as Lady Christina steals a cup which is needed to save the universe... Edgepedia (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

it also is part of a script with many pages behind it.

gli??? ??els - glinting jewels??? would make sens eif part of a robbery OR i know but hecj - I'm excited.. the blurring is possible to read maybe - anyone else got a good screen capture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go forward to just a few milliseconds and the last lines begins to become visible, it begins with, "S.....ing ..., a [CAPITALS] is a ................., ...k covering .... [again blurred but came make out another capitalisation]

...... (down?)

Then she (looks?) back......"

Also in the first paragraph you can make out "plinth, centrie" "cup. Solid shi" and in the last line the word is definitely Glinting Jewels, and Cup is followed by "OF A..."

--Hammard (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Series

The infobox states that this ep is part of Series 4, presumably because the production team have decided to use series 4 production codes. Shouldn't this be changed to "2009-10 Specials" and a page of this name created? It also seems a bit silly to have the Series 4 template at the bottom of the page when "Planet of the Dead" isn't even included in the episodes. Pdb781 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about a name here [3]. To be consistent with the section title Specials (2009-10) my suggestion for a name would be Doctor Who specials (2009-10) but I wonder if we will have enough for an article about four specials that wouldn't be in the episode articles. Edgepedia (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lady Christina (nit picking)

Something was not seeming right, so I looked at Lady. If she's English, then perhaps she should be referred to as The Lady Christina de Souza. Of course, if she's an alien, then she can call herself what she wants. Edgepedia (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're really going to nitpick: She could be a Lady in the Scottish sense (ie a female Laird) or perhaps even a mediaeval Lady (time travel? Admittedly this seems unlikely due to her clothing, etc etc). However in both cases simply 'Lady Christina' would be correct. In my experience sci-fi series usually ignore proper usage of titles of nobility. ;) --Cameron* 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Lady Penelope ignores the 'The', but the first real one I found Lady Edward FitzGerald gives the correct title. However, I would agree it's very likely her title is not English. Edgepedia (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're assuming she's a member of the peerage - it could be a courtesy title for the daughter of a peer, which would make much more sense given:

-how difficult primogeniture makes it for women to inherit titles

-her reference to 'Daddy' investing in Icelandic banks. (Their collapse happened recently, and she implies that he lost all his money in them, implying he's still alive, since she doesn't seem to be in mourning.)

-The Doctor's reference to her as 'The Honorable Lady Christina de Souza' - The Honorable is usually a form of address reserved for the children of peers. Although I wouldn't read too much into this, as the Doctor has only just met her, and doesn't necessarily know much about her.

Politico234 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if the BBC call her Lady Christina (whoch to date they have done), we should. It's not that vital. :) NP Chilla (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, whatever the BBC calls her stands. She was most likely named by someone who hasn't got this first clue how the title works...Mr T Davis, I'm looking at you! magnius (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bus update

I hesitate to add anything to the page, since the source - while seemingly accurate - is probably not deemed authoritative, but it seems a third bus has now been acquired by the BBC and shipped to Dubai to replace the damaged one - possibly making rewrites unnecessary (or at the very least, minor). The source, via a blog, is Bristol Commercial Vehicles Enthusiasts, the author of which claims to have been involved in sourcing the buses for the production. I'm also wary of this page becoming "the saga of the bus", though I suppose since it has an impact on the production of the episode it's all at least vaguely relevant. -- Guybrush (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Image (Magnius)

We don't have an image for this episode so far, but I was wondering if any of the images released by the BBC so far can be used? I am not sure how fair use really works, so don't want waste my time uploading and adding a pic that can't be used. Anyway, the pics release so far are here [4] magnius (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fair use guys will probably want a justification for the image. Until the episode airs, we probably won't know anything concrete to justify any of those images. DonQuixote (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Companion?

No companion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.248.169 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no companion in this episode as Lady Christina does not fly in the TARDIS. 100.0.244.109 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Hynes images

[5]

As this is the only unbroadcast episode being filmed at the moment do you think this is noteworthy? --Hammard (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignore me, this is filmed for the Christmas special --Hammard (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of Easter weekend

Not everybody is Christian. Ergo, not everybody knows when Christian holidays are, especially the ones that are on a different date every year. I shouldn't have to look on a separate (and unrelated) page to find the broadcast date for an episode where that information is known (which I did, since I didn't have the slightest clue of when Easter falls this year). ShaleZero (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this, but this as been discussed at length [[6]]. It's wrong because we know that it's not being broadcast on Friday 10th as the listing magazines are already in the shops. However, we will know by this time tomorrow, when the Easter listing magazines come out. Edgepedia (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If we knew it was going to be broadcast on Saturday or Sunday, why not say that? The article already listed Easter weekend as the airdate; all I did was note the dates where Easter weekend falls this year. The wrong information was already there. ShaleZero (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter could mean Monday. Easter weekend could also mean Monday, as it's a long weekend. Edgepedia (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change it again without agreement being reached in the talk page! "Easter weekend" will suffice as a generalisation of the airdate. It is not hard to find out when Easter weekend is if you really need to know. If you revert again you risk being in breech of the Three revert rule.

Since when does Wikipedia trade in "sufficient generalizations" of known facts? This makes no sense at all. Easter has a specific date, and I see no reason it shouldn't be cited somewhere in the article. ShaleZero (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How about we all leave the article as it is until we find out the date for sure (probably within a few days)? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image?

I see that there's an edit war going on. Please note that WP:NFCC 3 and 8 mean that there is an onus on those wishing to include a non-free image to justify the inclusion. The default status is not to include otherwise. TTFN. 212.32.109.12 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Click on the image, and you'll see the docuumentation for it - explaining the reasons for it being used "To illustrate the villain, their looks, clothing, weaponry, technology, combined with the episode's desert setting". If you don't agree with this documentation, then take it to WP:FFD rather than taking the image of the page. 81.157.236.16 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• No - we've been here before. The image clearly doesn't significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article (i.e. the episode). It might increase the reader's understanding of a Tritovore, but we haven't got an article on that. Wait until the episode has aired, find a GOOD image (London Bus in the desert?) and put that in. This one clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Then take it to WP:FFD - that's the proper procedure. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Material which violates WP:NFCC can be removed at any time (and is also exempt from WP:3RR. Black Kite 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Or WP:FUR, which is even more proper ;-) Like Bold, Revert, Discuss, the image doesn't hurt anyone there, we won't be sued if we spend 24h discussing it. Revert-warring is just harmful, and it's the NFCC guys starting this, this time, it seems. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively, why not just stop violating NFCC until a suitable image is available? It's what, 9 days until the episode airs? Black Kite 18:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUR: The Non-free content review page is a place where Wikipedians discuss whether media without free content licenses are in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Could you explain why you have chosen not to go down this discussion- and consensus-based route, but instead opted for the more adversarial channel? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy for it to be discussed while it's not in the article. That's the default position. It is for those who believe it does pass NFCC to explain why, not the other way round. I've explained above why it doesn't. I'm a DW fan myself and that image tells me nothing about the episode. Black Kite 18:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Episodes have an atmosphere. They can be "scary and dark," "light and entertaining," "bizarrely alien," - the insectivoid-monster-in-the-desert theme is quite a new one, and how better to demonstrate the theme and feel than a picture of an insectivoid-monster-in-the-desert? Granted, what I've written is crap, makes little sense, and would embarass a primary-school pupil. And that's precisely why an image is needed in this case, it's irreplaceable by words. In my opinion. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Except that unless you've seen the episode (and I assume you haven't) then for all you know, that image could be completely unrepresentative of the episode... Black Kite 18:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The image has been released to promote the episode. The trailer (on the BBC website) and the synopsis suggests that the sand landscape is an important part of the story - and given that this is Doctor Who, the alien will probably important to the story as well. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On that tangenet, should the Trailer Be added to the article? Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that the BBC are going to reveal anything really major about the episode before it airs. The link to the trailer is a valid external link btw. Black Kite 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there does need to be a proper discussion on whether the image meats the NFCC - I mean just now there's only theee of us discussing it. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

P.s - Since the article is locked, the trailer link can't be added. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Use the edit-protected template. Black Kite 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• The image seems fine to me. Describing the alien's appearance in words wouldn't cut it. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not the point. This isn't an article about that alien. Black Kite 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a moratorium, at least, on uploading fair use images to episode articles before they air? They rarely get seen as NFCC-compliant. We need to not be able to describe a scene in words and give context to the image. Future episode articles rarely, if ever, do that. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Why not just wait until there's an image that's definitely from the episode, use it to illustrate a significant part of it and avoid all this unnecessary edit-warring?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Does seem to be the most sensible action. The Image will be changed after the episode anyway, so there's not much point in having that image for a week, only to have it changed then deleted anyway. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is not the first time an edit war has ensued over a pre-broadcast image, and it is getting old. The image does nothing for the article, as there is nothing in the article it can relate to. — Edokter • Talk • 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno over the image, naturally. Incidentally, the link to the trailer isn't any good, it's UK-only and shouldn't be included, therefore. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for an image at the present time. Let's wait until it's on iPlayer like we usually do. Then we can screenshot it and put it on the wiki. --Meph (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Official broadcasting date

{{editprotected}} The broadcasting date has been confirmed. Here's the proof. Please add "6:45pm 11 April 2009" to the introduction section of the article. --Meph (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't add the time, that's not included in infoboxes (like this, this and this). Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say infobox? Sorry, I meant to say introduction. I'll edit it. --Meph (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

Note - a major spoiler is just breaking on the Doctor Who Forum about {spoiler, click to see}. It'll need to be removed if added (as I'm sure it will be) since it's baseless and unsourced, though extremely exciting... I'm out tonight, so I just thought I ought to let people know. Have a nice evening! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to next special

There's been a little back-and-forth about how the link to the next special (in the "following" field of the infobox) should look. There are two related disputes going on about the second special's article (currently located at 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who): one issue is the AfD, currently displaying a consensus towards "keep" but still open, and the other is the article's name. We have a source giving the title "The Waters of Mars", but there is a dispute over its reliability. However, no one disputes that reliable sources (namely, Russell T Davies and David Tennant) have said that the current plan is for it to air in November, not at Christmas. There's a consensus that the current title is wrong, but there is no consensus yet as to what the title should be. Also, the presence of the AfD complicates any page renaming/moving. Chances are it will stay at the current (inaccurate) title until after "Planet of the Dead" airs, when we'll probably have the title for the next special. Until then, the best way to indicate the next special is a piped link like this: TBA. That way, we point readers to the correct (although currently mistitled) article, but the visible text here isn't misleading. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

According to some reasonably reliable sources who have seen advanced screenings, the next special is to be called "The Waters of Mars" (revealed in the end credits). We will of course find out for sure (or not) in a few hours. magnius (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called The Waters of Mars. End of. We already have a source, but some people decided not to use it; as you say... in 93 minutes we'll know for sure. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been very distracted over the past few days (family bereavement), so have been completely out of the loop. What is the source that isn't being used? I read up again and saw that bit about the title (missed it somehow) magnius (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry.

You can read most of the discussion at Talk:2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) and Talk:List of Doctor Who serials - do a Ctrl+F for TV Guide should do it ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, on both counts. magnius (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Under construction

I've tagged it because I intend to work on the article tonight. Not now, though; around about midnight BST. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Without seeing this message, I just untagged it... Two seconds, I'll explian... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody will tag it for deletion, and the tag looks a bit like a {{inuse}} sign, and will deter people from editing. I think it's fine. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hint of Master's Return (Rose's too)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm seriously thinking of putting this back in and am presenting the case here.

The Planet of the Dead episode hints at the Masters return. The drup taps tap-tap-tap-tap was a significant plot mechanism in The Sound of Drums as illustrated in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQooQeNvbs. The whole score to that episode used that repeating four beat pattern also. The Master described it as being the noise he heard constantly in his head. 4 knocks is very like four taps or drum beats and fits with what a lot of news sites are saying including the Sun newspaper.

The words "it is returning through the dark" have would also fit with reports of Rose returning after being trapped in the alternate universe.

There are several site reporting this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2329695.ece - Says Rose is coming back as well as John Simm as the Master
http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/04/06/doctor-who-spoilers-for-tennants-last-hurrah/
http://www.denofgeek.com/television/229592/doctor_who_john_simm_returns.html - John Simm seen on location

I do not think this is idle speculation or worthy of comments such as "Oh, give it a break". Russel T Davies (the writer of this episode) is well known for hiding messages about plot lines in the episodes and this all lives up to the mark!

Amhoyle (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a single reliable source is listed there. We need cast iron information, not speculation from tabloids who quote alleged insiders, nor can we use blurry images of actors on set as they could just be visiting (unlikely I know, but possible). A lot of your case involves original research, which is not permitted on wikipedia. Although all the signs do seem to point towards The Masters return (I'd bet money on it myself), we cannot add this information until a good source states it. magnius (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair points. I'm happy to leave this in the discussion page until/if more reliable sources can be attributed. Apologies, it was not intended as original research even if it comes across as such.

Amhoyle (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for future reference, the sun isn't a reliable source for anything. "It is Returning through the dark" could also be marking the Masters return. The dark could be the timelord afterlife. we don't know. but that much is my speculation which could be completely disregarded as absolute drivel69.81.177.23 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that nobody but me has considered that this hint might be refering to the 'thing' from Midnight! As Carmen was talking to the Doctor, the musical score from Midnight started to play in the background, also, she said about 'returning through the darkness' (Midnight) and that he'd 'knock four times' (the creature mirrored The Doctor's four knocks on the outside of the bus). Anyone else think this? o.o Mattrius (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been clearly stated that there is no way to reliably attribute the warning to anything specific. This discussion is now veering into forum territory, so I'm closing. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well, I don't think that this counts as tabloid speculation. RTD writes a column for DWM, called production notes. A couple of issues ago, he wrote: "One new enemy from the specials is hidden on this page somewhere...happy hunting!" I think this refers to him also writing on the same page "The Master is Prime Minister!" OK, he does use the word "new" but, I don't think that it's a coincidence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.254.213 (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a reliable source that explicitly states the Master's return. All the evidence points that way, I know, and it's certainly not as low as tablid speculation (!) but it just doesn't meet the Wikipedia threshold. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Planet of the Dead

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Planet of the Dead's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "factfile":

• From The Stolen Earth: "The Stolen Earth: Fact File". Doctor Who microsite. BBC. 28 June 2008.
• From Planet of the Ood: "Planet of the Ood: Fact File". Doctor Who microsite. BBC. Retrieved 2008-04-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Doctor when talking to Malcom about the files mentioned the giant robot, which is assumably a referance to 'Robot', Tom Bakers first serial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.150.229 (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Without a reliable source that states as fact that it was a reference, this becomes original research and as such cannot be included in the main article. magnius (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm not having a gripe, but when I mentioned in the above section that the Doctor makes a reference to "Robot" it was classified as 'Original Research' and removed. Surely that's what the dialogue was actually referring to?

Apologies again, but for once I'd just like to be able to contribute to the Doctor Who pages without other users assuming you're treading on their toes. Absurdtrousers (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't know that that is what the reference was to. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense as it was a story featuring UNIT and would therefore have a file on it. As the Doctor assumes when he asks the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monk farmer (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is still original research. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well unless the character says "Remember in the episode when I did that" I can't see how a reference to something in another episode, is different to this one. But whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.156.86 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It could get mentioned online on the BBC website, or in Confidential. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible reference to other episodes is when The Doctor says 'Humans on buses, always blaming me', referring to the episode Midnight. Also, on the subject of citations for references, a lot of entries in other articles don't cite anything, and the citation in this article doesn't point to an interview where RTD says 'ABC refers to XYZ', so I don't see why the sudden fuss. Old Marcus (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other UNIT episodes that have a giant robot? There are a few with Cybermen, but I don't think any other that really qualifies as giant. Ratemonth (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been clearly stated that there is no way to reliably attribute the comment to anything specific. This discussion is now veering into forum territory, so I'm closing. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And unclosed by Man of wealth and taste, naturally. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The info as currently phrased does not assert anything that can't be verified. Man of wealth and taste (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It does assert what cannot be verified. It implies (deliberately) that there is a link, and that the one refers to the other. You must provide a source for that sort of claim, no matter how indirect. I think it should be deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm not sure why Man of wealth and taste re-opened this thread "for when sources turn up" - why would they? That assumes that they will, because this theory is right. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's already been removed. Good. Per WP:BRD, please refrain from re-adding it until the discussion has taken place. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've again removed the statement here as the new sources did nothing to link the two stories - they only provided evidence for the two stories existing separately. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 08:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I might have gone over 3RR with my revert just now, but I consider the edit in question to have been pretty much vandalism. Unexplained pointless reversion adding in original research. I'll gladly self-revert or apologise if requested, though, just let me know. Thanks/sorry! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Until a reliable source turns up, this discussion has been closed. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm withholding opinion on the Robot mention for the time being, but I'd like to point out that the reference to The Stolen Earth and Journey's End rests on exactly the same footing. If we can argue that the Doctor's line about "the giant robot" is not necessarily a reference to Doctor Who and the Giant Robot, we can argue with the same justification that Barclay and Nathan's remarks aren't necessarily a reference to The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought of that earlier. I'm broadly in support of removing that as well, given that there's no real direct evidence... but I daren't do it!

If you think it falls into the same category as the Robot comments, then I think it makes sense to remove it. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But do we really dispute that that is what's being referenced there? WP:NOTOR says, "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source." The question we'd have to answer is whether it's possible to regard Doctor Who in its entirety as a single primary source (in which case the "planets in the sky" line can be justified as an internal reference within the work) or whether each story is a separate source (in which case it's probably original synthesis, albeit staggeringly obvious synthesis). I should also note that TV articles on Wikipedia are full of reference explanations like this — of course, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a justification, but we should recognize if we're holding ourselves to a higher standard than usual practice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the logic in that, I just worry that calling the whole of Who a primary source opens the floodgates: it could even be used to justify the inclusion of "THE MASTER KNOCX 4 TIMES SO ITS HIM" and material of that sort. I see that other TV articles contain that sort of rubbish, and I'm constantly amazed by just how poor they are in comparison to our entries - they're not a healthy benchmark! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with TreasuryTag (which is a turn up for the books given previous debates!) If we allow this type of cross-episode pollination here then how can we justify the (correct) exclusion of the Robot mention debated above? And if we then allow that then we would have to allow for the unfounded speculation about knocking four times referring to the Master according to the case made above. The further we go down that line the more we legitimise Wikipedia becoming a forum for people to post predictions based on presumed indicators from episodes with no further material to back them up. Normally I am not a fan of 'slippery slope' arguments, but having just read the above Robot/Master references debate, I can see how, given the weight of expectation the future specials are under, allowing these references now will only sanction other, less helpful, ones in the coming weeks/months. Thus far it seems we are all either cautiously or strongly for removing the offending sections, with the exception of Josiah Rowe, who I believe to be for keeping them. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you need to realise that "giant robot" more likely to refer to a giant robot, and "song will end soon" is more likely to refer to the Ood's warning, than "four knocks" is to the Master (there are many alternative explanations, including the Midnight monster, for examle). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

An obvious link between two existing episodes is entirely different to speculation about a future episode. As stated above from WP:NOTOR, "Anything that can be observed by a reasonable person simply by reading the work itself, without interpretation, is not original research, but is reliance upon a primary source."--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd characterize myself as being "cautiously for" notes explaining the references to Robot, Journey's End and Planet of the Ood, but I recognize that my opinion is based more on past practice than on written Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To put it bluntly — the Doctor Who articles are full of unsourced notes saying "this is a reference to that", connecting the strands of Doctor Who's 46-year history. But then, I see that there are no "continuity" sections in our three FA episode articles, so perhaps my personal feelings are out of kilter with best practice here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with mentioning the appearance of the robot in Robot as long as we don't state that it is definitely a reference. In other words, to state two verifiable facts but not explicitly connect them, leaving things to the reader's judgement. I suppose the problem with that is that the connection is implicit, but that's still something I'd rather the reader judged - the alternative seems to be to deny them potentially useful (or at least interesting) information. However, I'm not going to attempt an edit - I'm just throwing the idea out in the hope that those opposed to the additions might have a change of heart. On the same subject, does anyone consider this to be a reliable source for references in the episode? Maccy69 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's OK - it's on the official website after all. We've used the Fact Files as a source in previous articles, I'm sure.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my position is, that we should allow direct quotes as references (planets in the sky, song will end soon) but not more ambigouss statements. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I recognise the seeming difference TreasuryTag sees between the Journey's End and Robot references, and the four knocks = Master nonsense, I just don't see that it is a tangible and demonstrable difference. Is it not more that we are certain of our thoughts on the Robot connection without any evidence to support it in the same way that they are certain of the four knocks=master reference without any evidence to support it? Fair enough we are more likely to be correct, but without evidence it is still an unsourced supposition unworthy of an encyclopedia. Let us not fall into the trap of superiority and allow ourselves to make the mistakes we forbid to others. I take Josiah's point about previous articles containing unsourced continuity, and I recognise that I am a newcomer round these parts and probably oughn't to rock an established boat, but if the three FA episode articles do not feature this type of material, is this not the time to learn our lesson from that and work towards a better set of articles in general, starting right here by being strict with ourselves about unsourced guesswork, no matter how likely it is the guesses are correct? -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, while on the topic, I recently removed the following from a section on outside influences on the episode: 'The Doctor's rejection of Christina at the end of the episode was influenced by his recent losses in "Journey's End": under other circumstances, Christina would travel in the TARDIS with the Doctor; and Carmen's warning was a "classical" and "chilling" science-fiction prophecy which evoked memories of the Ood's warning to the Doctor and his then-companion Donna Noble in the fourth series episode "Planet of the Ood", and served to foreshadow the remaining three specials.'. Spectre reinstated it, arguing that there was nothing in the paragraph that stopped a discussion of how other episodes had influenced this one. That in itself is fine, but this seems to me to be forum/fan wiki stuff, not the type of detailed references to stylistic influences found elsewhere in the paragraph. Also how do we know it foreshaows the remaining specials without seeing them? And how do we know that Christina would have travelled with the Doctor, and under what 'other' circumstances? What does that even mean? what is a '"classical" and "chilling" science-fiction prophecy'? The rest of the statement is just continuity, and so falls in with the material we are discussing above. Since I removed this material once, and the original author reinstated it, I wanted to try to get a consensus on it here rather than risking an edit war by removing it again myself. Any thoughts? -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We all know that the 'giant robot' that appears in UNIT's files is the robot from Robot. It is an obvious reference that is recognisable to anyone who has seen both stories. It is hardly going to refer to some other giant robot that has never been seen on-screen that also happens to have been encountered by the UNIT and the Doctor, as the entire purpose of the reference is nostalgic. It is a simple deduction, and the original Robot episode itself serves as a suitable reference. WP:NOTOR.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says UNIT doesn't have other files on other, more Doctor-timeline recent giant robots? Any attempt to connect that statement to "Robot" without any other sourced evidence is WP:OR and needs to be avoided. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's blatantly clear from the context that the cyber-king is not the subject of discussion, and that the UNIT files in question refer to the Doctor's earlier tenure as UNIT's science advisor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the most likely possibility but without any sources, we cannot state that. That's the whole problem with "continuity" sections and synthesis. If RTD says it, ok, that's different, but he's been mum to date. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Jeffro has to describe it as a 'deduction' indicates that he has engaged in original research and/or synthesis to reach his conclusion. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We are hardly talking about some unique opinion that I have come to based on some 'research' of my own. Indeed, Robot (Doctor Who) (which I have not edited) has included the POTD reference in its continuity section since 12 April. Apparently that article is not guarded by the same Pharisaical editors as this one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeffro: Firstly, watch your tongue. We assume good faith here and do not resort to pathetic name calling. If the debate seems to be going against you, accept that sometimes we must all bow to consensus rather than lashing out. Secondly, however, I would recommend that you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to demonstrate why your argument about the content of Robot (Doctor Who) has no bearing on this discussion. We have also covered this type of argument above. Please read the rest of the discussion to make sure that you are fully informed. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Pharisaical is apt, as it refers to applying the letter of the law but ignoring the spirit (see also WP:IAR, and WP:NOTOR referenced above).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

'Pharisaical: marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness'. WP:BENICE and WP:GOODFAITH. See above for debate on the issue you raise. Also, with regard to your comment about ignoring the spirit of the rules, can I draw your attention to the section of the discussion above where it is highlighted that all three FA Doctor Who episode atricles resist the type of material you are suggesting we include? Surely we ought to be using these high quality articles as examples in order to improve this one rather than ignoring the excellent precedent that they set and moving into murkier waters. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I had already read the entire discussion, and based on that discussion, see no reason for not stating that the comment in POTD may refer to the serial, Robot, taking into account the aforementioned quote from WP:NOTOR. I apologise for the negative connotation of 'Pharisaical' beyond my intended meaning stated above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I did note the statement that the FAs didn't have continuity sections, but saw no evidence to indicate that they are FAs because they don't have continuity sections. School Reunion is classed as a 'good' article, and no one has complained about the previous episodes referenced in its continuity section. Is there any basis to the claim that not having a continuity section is causative of featured article status??--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well to respond to that we must look at your argument from a different direction. There is no provable causality there, no, but equally there is no reason to suggest that it is not because of the lack of unsourced clutter in those articles that they have been regarded so highly. As much as there is no causality to connect the FA status of these articles and their approach to this topic, there is also no causality to suggest that including such material would help them achieve FA level, and indeed there is a lot of circumstantial evidence against such an argument. Of course there is no proof for either argument, yours or mine, but the fact that all three FA articles do not contain that material is very very strongly suggestive circumstantial evidence. The fact that some articles do contain this type of material and attain 'good' article status is immaterial, since in terms of excellence (FA being of higher quality that 'good'), there is no precedent whatsoever to suggest this material is helpful and three precedents to suggest it is not. I see that as relatively conclusive. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ood in Waters of Mars?

The article mentions that the Ood will be appearing in "The Waters of Mars", however there is nothing in the linked source that proves that the filming was for this episode. Do we know for sure that this information is accurate? magnius (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you ask Josiah Rowe about that. I had removed that source as being self-published, but was assured that it was a professional site (io9) [7] - which on investigation, seems to be true.

So basically - I'd ask Josiah. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quationing the validity of the source, I am questioning the fact that it does not mention anywhere that the filming is specifically for "The Waters of Mars", it doesn't even specify that it is for the second special. magnius (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, but Josiah re-inserted the reference [8] to support the statement that they were in "The Waters of Mars" and I assume he had a reason. I trust his judgement to use the source; that's my explanation of why I put it in there. If you want his explanation, which will presumably be slightly deeper than mine (!) you'd have to ask him. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have sent him a message, but that source does not back up the information in anyway. This falls under OR as far as I can see. Read the article for yourself...nothing in there relates to second special or Waters of Mars. magnius (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the first source [9] it says "Ood Sigma turned up at the end of the scene, but didn't have much interaction with the other characters." and in the second one [10] it says "(...) set of the second 2009 special." Regards SoWhy 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there we go then - well spotted! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have obviously read the source; I am also assuming good faith of Jonah Josiah, one of the most experienced admins in the Doctor Who WikiProject. Wait to see what he has to say. It may be, "Oh yeah, I hadn't noticed that, take it out," in which case I'm fine with it going. But there's nothing wrong with courteously theorising that he knows what he's doing. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've read this "source", and I'm not convinced. It seems like a lot of speculation to me. Guessing what is happening in an episode based on Chinese whispers is probably not a good idea. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though it is still a professional website, and we add things based on verifiability, not truth. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't these pictures from various forums though? I thought we didn't class forums as reliable sources, especially one that enforces user registration and effective anonymity? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Where the pictures come from is, I think, irrelevant. If something were published in The Times as fact, we don't say, "But where did the journalists get it from?" It is a reliable source, and thus its material is considered to be reliable. Since io9 is a professional website, it assumed that they vet their material appropriately. I think. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not seeming to be pedantic about pushing this point, but it seems very much like the Robot issue above. We don't know the context in which this Ood segment has been filmed. Like with John Simm being spotted on set for the third episode, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Master is back again. The same I think therefore applies to the Ood. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

< No, you don't seem pedantic at all, and I tend to agree with you. However, the reliable, professional source says this as fact, and we're not allowed to evaluate their statements. If they say it, it's verifiable, which is the threshold - not truth. If they were to publish a story saying that the Master was returning, then we could also include that. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll leave it there then. Still not entirely convinced about the "professional" part of the site, but if the top dogs (Josiah et al) think it's OK, I guess they must be right. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 16:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, basically, yeah. Trust to Josiah ;-) Also, if you read the article io9, it does seem to have proper, paid editors etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's been removed. That was constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank TreasuryTag for his kind words, which I'm not sure I entirely deserve. As for the issue at hand, it's true that the io9 article does not say explicitly that the filming was for The Waters of Mars; however, it does say that Lindsay Duncan is on hand, and we know that she's the guest star for that episode.

This raises the question of whether an inference like this (source says Lindsay Duncan and Ood spotted in filming; therefore filming is for the same episode) constitutes original research or synthesis. I concede that on the strictest, most pedantic reading of WP:NOR this could be construed as synthesis. However, I'm a strong believer in using common sense in a case like this. Newpaper reports ([11], [12]) say that the filming that night was for the second special. io9 also says so in another article. That's three sources identifying the filming for that night. I think that it's safe to say that Ood Sigma was spotted on location during filming for the second special. That way, we're still covered in the unlikely event that the Lindsay Duncan bits were for The Waters of Mars but the Ood wasn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Always a pleasure... and apologies for calling you "Jonah" above, that was particularly silly! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all — though I've never been inside the belly of a whale! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes far more sense to say that Ood Sigma was spotted during filming, rather than inferring (as you say) that he will feature in this particular episode. I'd be happier with that explanation. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm generally disdainful about continuity sections, and would like to minimise this section. Ood Sigma could easily be a red herring as it is the truth. We can't know for certain. And frankly, I don't know what Ood Sigma in filming for that episode has relevance for this episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the wording indicated the connection fairly well — Carmen says the Doctor's song is ending, Ood Sigma previously said the same thing, Ood Sigma was seen in filming for the next episode. All the parts of that were either from the primary source or cited to reliable sources; where's the "rumour milling"? Sometimes even red herrings merit inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that (not least since I wrote that bit...) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The stuff about the Ood saying it too is in the writing section. I'm a bit wary about Ood Sigma being in The Waters of Mars, as I don't think it's particularly relevant to this episode at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken cite

Note 15 reads: "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DWMroberts". Man of wealth and taste (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Someone who got DWM 406 should complete that source though. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Of (fictional) British Ladies

Does anyone know of any source confirming that Lady Lara Croft was an inspiration for Lady Christina de Souza? An aristocratic lady adventurer with a backpack full of impossible things, stealing ancient or medieval artifacts. She's pretty much a clone of Croft with a different appearance. Of course, this might always be coincidence. 90.135.153.253 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There are such comparisons on a number of blogs and forums [13][14][15][16] but afaik there are no reliable sources making such statements, so we cannot include it in the article. Regards SoWhy 11:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Jane Anders of io9 describes Lady Christina as a "Lara Croft knockoff" in her review. I think that io9 is a reliable source, as it's professionally produced and edited, and Anders has been published elsewhere on the subject of science fiction. This isn't enough for us to make a claim that Christina was inspired by Lara, but we could certainly add it to the "reception" section once it's developed a bit more. (I'd add it now myself, but in the absence of any other reviews the bald statement "Charlie Jane Anders of io9 described Lady Christina as a "Lara Croft knockoff"" would have WP:WEIGHT problems.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of free image

I have recently done an edit of this page last night, adding an image (File:Nazwa sand dunes 01.jpg). However, in this edit, Sceptre seemed to have reverted it without explaination (unless I'm missing something). I don't want to re-add it without a discussion first, so I can avoid edit warring. I'm just wondering why it has been removed. There are reasons why I have added that image in the first place.

1. The episode was set in a desert, and hence filmed in a desert, which shouldn't be original research.
2. The image is of the Dubai region (check the categories from commons).
3. It is a free image.

If there are reasons why is is removed, then I'll be happy to hear it. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's because it shows a fence, which is from Earth; while the planet in question was not. It's basically irrelevant to the episode. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of an edit conflict. That's why :) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If the desert in the free image is in the same area as the desert used for filming, I think it's a worthwhile addition. The fence isn't a problem if it's presented in the "real world" section of the article. Do we have any sources discussing the specific area of desert where the filming took place? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You could always just crop out the fence! Bradley0110 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further image discussion

I have uploaded a new image image:Planetdead.jpg. Tell me what you think. Leave a {{Talkback|Talk:Planet of the Dead|Removal of free image}} when you do. Thanks, --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WAY too large. Reduce it to about 400px in width. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The picture on the page is 400px. Plus, I am in no mood to shrink the orginal image. You do that. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 22:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add that the image of the Doctor and the other cast, in front of a somewhat damaged London bus, in the middle of a desert, is replaceable by text - I just did it right there. A better image for this episode is something involving the swarm, maybe following the flying bus into the wormhole, maybe just as part of the swarm, etc. "Manta-ray like aliens" is less a replacement as the real picture of this. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A closeup of the manti alien or just the swam as a whole. Because I have both. How about the fly-like alien. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 05:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The manti swarm would be best. The fly alien is describable by text. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Then see the article and tell me what you think. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Edoktor has put in pretty much a good summary image (flying bus + swarm) which, IMO, is perfect for describing the episode and meeting NFC requirements. The second image of a close up of the alien may or may not be necessary, it depends how well one feels the current infobox image does representing the aliens. Given that if we say they are "manta ray"-like and consider that in light of the info box pic, I think it is duplicative. However, there may be good cause to illustrate the alien depending on what nfo there is in development. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Confidential: Name that tune

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

During this episode's corresponding Confidential episode, when they replay the scene of the bus first going through the wormhole, the soundtrack plays a song with twangy guitars and orchestral backing. Anyone able to tell me what this is as I've been trying to figure it out to no avail. Radical AdZ (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I actually knew this, no harm in saying that it was this song. Black Kite 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to preclude any more discussions about "he will knock four times"

It is not the Master. From the podcast:

David: And if you think you've figured out what that means, you're wrong!

Julie: But when you do figure it out, it's a sad day.

Please and thank you. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally not ruling that out :-) However, yes, any mention of the Master in this article due to the 4 knocks is unwarrentted, period. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, right before Series 3, RTD said, "The Master will not be in Series 3." He's paid to do that sort of thing. We've definitely seen Simm on set, but unless people can find a reliable source for it, then it's no good. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Though this isn't RTD saying it in a newspaper read by millions; this is David and Julie saying it in a podcast listened to by hundreds. I'd be inclined to think this isn't a bit of a white lie. And there ain't nothing like a flashback scene :) Personally, I think it's the Midnight monster :) Sceptre ^(talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the music is the Midnight cue, not the Master's cue. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} Can someone undo this edit, which added original research against talkpage consensus, and was over 3RR: [17] [18] [19] Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this suggestion. This user was on their fifth revert, and had failed to discuss this addition despite our many requests to do so. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 08:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done —Reedy 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta very much. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What, you're not allowed to use logic on wikipedia? It's entirely obvious that it is a reference to Robot - anyone with an inch of logic could work that out. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not. See also the thread here, and WP:SYN. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am loathe to have this page protected so soon after transmission, as that is likely to be when the article grows most substantially. It seems like the problem is 3RR edit warring between one or two users. I'll keep an eye on this page, but if there are further 3RR violations (including any further reverts by anyone already at or over the line) please let me know and I will block the offending party, hopefully alleviating the problem without rendering the page uneditable.. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm declaring that I am at or over the line (it's slightly unclear which, but GDonato basically ruled all edits up to the time of protection as dealt with), and will not be editing much, or reverting further at all, until I get back from my vacation - for which I leave tomorrow morning - on Sunday evening. Enjoy your week, all! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

NB, Man of wealth and taste has stated that he will not be forcing the issue any further. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I look more, this is a pair of revert-warring users. The correct solution was not page protection, but dealing with each of the edit warriors, each of whom I've blocked for 24 hours. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Continuety" section is turning into an edit war regarding the robot. I have applied warnings to the annonymous IP, yet he/she continues to revert and I don't want this to turn into a war. I have already reverted this edit 3 times and cannot do it again for fear of the 3RR. Could someone who knows the procedure better please deal with it? Thank you. magnius (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean like the same edit war we had this morning (except this one can be dealt with by semi-protection)? I noticed this edit but I also don't wish to revert it as I've already made several reverts to this article today. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No - looking at the history, you're fine to revert it. I'd do it myself except that I blocked the IP, so I can't. Black Kite 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have reverted anything on this page today at all, I wouldn't revert this. BlackK, I agree, it's perfectly reasonable. But that didn't do me any good. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the IP edit - considering the *huge* discussion here and the fact they'd already been reverted and blocked, I think it was reasonable to revert it now anyway. I've referred to the discussion here if anyone wants to try and drag this up later. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's clearly WP:OR and doesn't belong in the article unless RTD or someone else confirms that it was what he meant by the comment. And even then it's bordering on trivia. Black Kite 19:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, given that there is exactly one UNIT story with a giant robot, a reference to a UNIT adventure with a giant robot is sufficiently obvious that it amounts to non-novel synthesis of the primary source. The OR attack smacks of an overreach to attempt to get a big firm policy to stand against the information. This seems to me unnecessary - the fact that an idle in-joke to long-standing fans of Doctor Who is not a significant or important part of Planet of the Dead as a cultural artifact is sufficient to justify the information's removal. We do not need to over-construe NOR to do what common sense and principles of good writing will do for us. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does this have to refer to a story that has been broadcast? 'Common Sense' (whatever that means) tells me that a lot of things happen to UNIT and the Doctor that we know nothing about. Edgepedia (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Because that would be very strange and contrary to the way that one tends to assume allusion and textuality work. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have blocked User:136.244.13.71 and semi-protected the page for 3 days. No problem if any other admin wants to remove it at any point. Black Kite 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Review dump

For me to use later when writing the reception article:

• Den of Geek
• io9
• Digital Spy
• Airlock Alpha
• IGN
• And when it goes up, the Stage review.

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

I restored the image because Sceptre's image shows the bus too far away and shows no detail of the swarm. He wants to accentuate the damage to the bus, but that is not a central plot element, and also hardly visible. — Edokter • Talk • 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Curiously, how does your image "significantly increase [the] reader['s] understanding of the topic"? Your image also lacks detail and I'm tempted to remove it and nominate it for deletion due to its non-compliance with WP:NFCC. Matthew (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is central to the episode though. An infobox image cannot survive on the plot alone! Sceptre ^(talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost call for replacing either bus/swarm image with the close-up of one of the aliens. If you show that, then "A damaged flying bus races ahead of a swarm of these guys over a desert planet" is a replacement. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The swarm is equally replaceable by text: "a swarm of metallic stingrays"; same with the Tritovores: "A dude with a fly head". NFCC#1 is actually more permissive than people think: an image that can be described by text (for example, the infobox image of The Stolen Earth) may still pass because a textual description may not fulfill the same encyclopedic purpose. For example, the damage to the bus is extremely significant to the episode, bordering on artistic, and it would be a disservice not to include it. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have uploaded a picture of the main characters in front of the damaged 200 bus. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With the damaged bus image along with the details of how the bus was damaged literally as a prop, I've gone ahead and swapped out the "flying bus + swarm" image with just the closeup of the aliens as the infobox one. I'm going to move the damaged bus pic to the filming section since that's where its most useful. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redux

Ok, we now have four non-free images on this page:

• Use of Lens-flare - no question of keeping this per article info.
• Closeup of swarm alien - Unique element of episode, worthwhile to keep in the plot section (as there's no details of its creation otherwise
• The side view of cast and the damaged bus - Good shot of the damage to the bus that was incurred during production (there's likely a better from-back-corner view shortly after that scene but the intent is there). Should be in the production section
• That leaves the current infobox image, of the bus (with damage still visible) flying against the swamp (with no single swarm entity large enough to be made out).

The last image is redundant given the 2nd and 3rd, as it can be described/visualized once you give the visual idea of images 2 and 3 and describe the bus as "flying". I propose that the second image, the closeup of the swarm aliens, replace that image of the flying bus in the caption, and move the current standing shot of the bus (#3) down to where the bus damage is discussed in the filming section. The current flying bus image is no longer necessary and should then be deleted. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DVD Release

Play.com have the DVD release for "Doctor Who - Planet of the Dead" listed as 29/06/2009. Anyone know if it's going to be released on Blu-Ray? Blaine Coughlan (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, apparently it is on the same date. Blaine Coughlan (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the official BBC Shop, the DVD release is 15 June, whereas the Blu-Ray is 29 June. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

200th story?

Should the article perhaps mention that this numbering is inconsistent with similar contemporaneous advertising by the BBC themselves of Dragonfire as 150th? Peter jackson (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion about this here. Maccy69 (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

First episode shot in UAE/ Arabic state/ Asia?

Worth mentioning? I can't find a source to back that up though. YeshuaDavid (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't Correct Due to Protection

The references to Robot in the continuity section that were decided by consensus to be removed have been re-added, along with references to Midnight and other such stories. Since this is against consensus reached above on this talk page I tried to remove them, but the page has been protected. If I don't remember to do this, could someone else remove the offending articles when the time is right? Thanks. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlock article

Can you unlock this article so that anon IP users can edit it. It would be very constructive as other unregestered user can pitch in their knowledge without logging in. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Images redux redux

To prevent the slow edit-war over the infobox image, why not move the image of the aliens into the infobox, and then re-instate the "damaged bus + cast" picture which I removed as superfluous to the infobox one. Then neither of the images that are being warred over need to be in the article? Just a thought (and three NF images is enough). Black Kite 11:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the image of the stingrays in the plot section; "metallic stingray" is easy enough to describe in words. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And we really need to be adding a lot fewer non-free images to these articles. That just makes them targets for those bent folk determined to purge any and all non-free images from Wikipedia. Don't make these articles targets. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the image that I uploaded, which shows FAR more details of the bus (including damage) and the swarm? — Edokter • Talk • 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And what about mine about the sting ray alien closeup. And the other pictures. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Edokter: I prefer the full view of the bus' damage rather than the close-up of the bus (it's all taken from the same three-second shot). Re Twy: yours fails WP:NFCC#1, as you can easily describe it in two words. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, from a NFCC#8 standpoint:

• The lens-flare is discussed as a technique described in the episode to hide the sound stage stuff. It's good to keep.
• A good shot (not CGI, or at least, not CGI of the bus itself) of the damaged bus seems perfectly fine in line with the fact the bus was damaged during shipping and incorporated the fact into the story.
• An image of the alien - the only "unique" feature of this episode, would be the most questionable but reasonable NFC to be used only to identify them. Yes "metal manta rays" may seem fine as a text replacement, but the above two images are not infobox images - they're appropriate in the development/filming section.
• Any image that combines the bus and the swarm that does not clearly show the bus damage and as least reasonable resolution of one of the aliens is duplicative and unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed; this can be done in 3 images. We don't need any more. Black Kite 14:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Per above, I'm a bit wary of the manta ray image because you can describe it that easily in text. The problem with the episode is that you don't get the damage, a close up of the sting rays, and the desert in one shot. It's always two of the three (i.e. the Sting Rays in the desert, the bus in the desert, or the bus and a sting ray). Re BK: I think there's a shot in Confidential where you can see the bus in-port with the damage. I'll see if I can find it. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  8:46 in Confidential. If anyone can get a rescaled HQ screenshot, tyvm :) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  9:26 is a good profile shot of the bus too. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Here's an alternative source. — Edokter • Talk • 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  Good catch. Can we get the stingray and UNIT in the infobox now? Those are the only two major elements we don't have now. (There's a free image of the filming here. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  The Sun's damaged bus pic against one of the pics in the above flickr stream (which has the right cc to use in WP) that has the undamaged bus would be a good combination without adding NFC burden. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  that is the problem: we have three elements: sand, bus damage, aliens - that we'd like in the same shot from the episode but that isn't available. Take out either the aliens or the damage and you're set. As the bus damage is specifically talked about in the filming, that element can be removed (the damaged bus picture taken into the Filming section) and now it seems obvious to me that a good infobox image would be the aliens (close up + swarm) against the desert planet, as that's a very unique aspect of this episodes. It would be awesome to have some filming / creative developement statement about the aliens to establish its use better, but as an infobox image it works. I realize that the fickle finger of image reviews at FAC will affect that of course. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  I prefer the infobox image to have parts of all of the article in it, as it's part of the summary lead section. I think the Michelle/David picture would be better in writing, as they are reviewing a script! Incidentally, I found this while looking for photos... can someone better than I can convince him to relicense? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  All of those flickr images look like they're fine for commons? Unless I'm missing something... (presumably for an SJA filming...) --MASEM (t) 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  They're CC-BY-NC-SA. We need to get rid of the NC. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Afternoon I Corrected Some Grammar

Sceptre, I can't drop you a note on your talk page as I'm not registered, so I thought it best to leave one here. I wasn't trying to be rude with those couple of grammar corrections. I didn't even know they were both your edits I was correcting until I checked afterwards! If semicolon lists are cool on wikipedia that is ok, but in the wider world they tend to be a little frowned on as commas serve that function well by themselves in the context that you were using them in. I was simply working to the standard rules. I guess it is just different styles of doing it. Not a problem if you prefer your semicolon lists. I was just trying to improve article, not have a pop at you! If you want to revert it to your style again, that is fine! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. I did incorporate some of your modifications, though. And I do give a link out for people who can't use my talk page :) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside References...

Is it worth including such a section, where the references to Quatermass, Hywel Dda and King Athelstan can be placed? Absurdtrousers (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We do for Athelstan, in the plot section. I'd love to include the Quatermass reference, but there's unfortunately no reliable source to say it is a reference. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Malcolm does say that "Bernards" are named for "Quatermass". That's pretty explicitly a reference to Bernard Quatermass. I think this is clearer than the "giant robot" thing — there's no more synthesis involved in saying that is a reference to Bernard Quatermass than there is in saying that the line about the bus acting like a Faraday cage is a reference to Faraday cage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is is that we don't know if Quatermass is a real person in continuity or a fictional character in continuity ("The Christmas Invasion" didn't help either). Sceptre ^(talk) 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Its worth adding that name "San Helios" is extremely close to "Sanghelios" planet in the Halo universe, homeworld of the Sangheili (Elite) race. Both planets are triple star systems. Given the widespread influence of Halo on all Sci-fi since 2001 its unlikely this is coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaguaraz (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Planet of the Dead/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am beginning a new GA review of this article, per the discussion at the recent reassessment. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews

I love this article.  :) :) But then, I appreciate the wholand, so why not. I do have some comments, that probably would fall into section 1, of the writing phase. I could be wrong on this, but I do think the WP:MOS wants us to put punctuation inside the quotes, and footnotes outside, and in standard MOS format, only the colon would go on the outside -- all others would be inside the quotes, except possibly in a few very unusual circumstances. Secondly, I can think of no reason why there would be two end quotation marks, as there is in Broadcast section. Thus the sentence in particular I'm looking at offers several of the MOS points that I mentioned:

Charlie Jane Anders of io9 "mostly loved "Planet Of The Dead"", commenting that it was a standard Russell T Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story":

....mostly loved "Planet of the Dead," commenting that it was a standard Russel T. Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story": etc. This said, such comments are actually quite minor.

Second, the lead is not as well written as the rest of the article and, I think, deserves another edit for clarity. There are a lot of preposition phrases -- sort of a pileup of prepositional phrases, you might say, and these could be clarified so that the lead reads as well as the rest of the article. Just mho.... --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh....and "one-off companion" ... I don't understand what that means. ... One time companion? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"One-off" means, roughly, "one time only"; more often used in British English than in American. Per the MoS, this is perfectly acceptable, especially considering the British origin of the subject. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

GA REVIEW - Pass

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Why the heck did I fail this article the first time? Excellent job!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very well-written in an engaging, but appropriately neutral tone

   B. MoS compliance:

   Compliant. (Note: I made several edits to the copy as I reviewed, in places I felt a touch-up was needed. I am, however, American, and while I attempted to ensure my edits weren't Americanization, I may have made some unintentionally. Please feel free to review and change any edit that Americanizes - any Doctor Who article should be British to the core!)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Excellent array of sources. All appear in order. The BBC, Dr. Who Magazine, podcast commentary, etc.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Citations used where appropriate (statements regarding production, reviews), and left out where appropriate (plot elements)

   C. No original research:

   None apparent. Article well patrolled by those keeping out uncited original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers all aspects of the episode, from its inception, production and reception, as well as a good summary of the plot.

   B. Focused:

   A bit lengthy for a television episode, IMHO, but not overly so, considering the scope of the production and its importance to the series. All included information is directly relevant to the topic and adds to the coverage.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   All language neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Ah, stability. How I misunderstood thee. Going by how this criterion should be interpreted according to consensus, article is stable, as its major content is agreed upon per the consensus of its primary editors; all reverted edits seem to be generally agreed-upon removals of original research and extraneous detail.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images tagged. Fair use rationales are clear and withstand scrutiny.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images used to illustrate the major colorful points - the desert, other locations, the bus damage, the unusual camera effect, all suitably captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passes with flying colors. I got so wrapped up in the content that I almost forgot I was supposed to be looking with a critical eye! This certainly speaks highly of the editors involved - you have made this a good article.

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Planet of the Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090412023600/http://www.gallifreyone.com:80/news.php to http://gallifreyone.com/news.php#newsitemEkFAZFkpkuSGfXfOKj

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Planet of the Dead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVJiRJV?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2010-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2010-hugo-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

HD

"after a positive reaction to the visual quality of spin-off series Torchwood and the financial viability of HDTV convinced the production team to switch formats."

Does anyone know at what episode Torchwood went HD? Unfortunately no info on the Torchwood Wikipedia entry, and the internet link to "Doctor Who to be filmed in HD" has been removed from the Wayback machine... Thanks. 2001:A61:24C4:A900:6470:47EA:9A3E:51A0 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)