Talk:Forest of the Dead/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title change

This is quite sudden... Are we sure Newsround is correct here? — Edokter • Talk • 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the do say that the Production Team told them that the title had been changed from "River's Run", and they are (a) the BBC and (b) pretty reliable Stephenb (Talk)
Shouldn't this be added to a Production section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.224.209 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm
The episode was named River's Run and has a character called River Song in it - coincidence ??
193.243.227.1 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In the title screen, it was called "Forest of the Dead", so I think it should stay as this.
Anime No Kyouran (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirection?

Is there any reason why this page was still being redirected to Doctor Who (series 4)? Type 40 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removal

There is a thread discussing Matthew's deletion of this article's image here. Please make your comments centrally, rather than here. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Predictions

Someone from IP address 81.158.105.80 added 'predictions' to the article. These are completely original research and have no place. They also called Professor River Song "Riversong". 92.5.113.238 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot?

Can anybody add in a detailed plot of the episode? I'm sure the people who have added in the plots of previous episodes can do the same for this. Although I watched the episode, I am not able to write the full details of the episode - perhaps somebody else who is able to watch the episode again? Thanks Itsalive4 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Have some patience. I thought the same as you but I'm quite convinced they will add the plot details within the next hours. --SoWhy Talk 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Added, I took the liberty of regrouping events to be able to make things clearer. --MASEM 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I watched the episode and I'm not sure what happened, what the heck was up with that ending? I'm going to throw out some spoilers here so cover your ears...or better yet don't read the Wikipedia article before watching the episode :) Are the exploratory crew alive or dead? If they are alive why can't they be dumped out like all the other survivors? Because they were picked up via the wifi link and not the teleporters? Why is the Doctor so happy that Song is kinda sorta alive but stuck in the library? Why did he need the sonic screwdriver Kung-fu is none of the original explorers did? Finally, why did Song need the brain node thing in The Doctor's screwdriver when Song already had one on her neck? I know the talk section isn't a Q&A but I was hoping for explanation in the Plot section. Either I didn't get it or it didn't make any sense. 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Though this isn't a forum, I'll cover it, since the plot isn't going to be covering this in such detail. The library survivors were fully-formed humans stored as complete patterns. To use a little Star Trek, their transport patterns were still in the buffer. The Data Ghosts are just an echo of consciousness picked up by the Wifi and saved. They have no transport patterns to be reintegrated from, hence they're stuck. As for why Song needed the kung-fu, I got the impression that Song was vaporized, or at least fried so totally that the Data Ghost cm device wouldn't survive. The sonic screwdriver she carried was no doubt isolated to prevent damage, and unintentional upload. A little OR for your thoughts. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm very impressed with this plot here. Very well-explained considering how complex the episode was. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Like Moffat's The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances, this serial is unique in that nobody actually dies (although this differs from the others in that River Song's crew is 'saved' rather than living at the end)". How can it be like other episodes and unique at the same time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.235.120 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed that; it was rubbish. U-Mos (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation but, as foreshadowed in Planet of the Ood, the Doctor's "Song" comes to an end in this episode. Coincidence? 194.203.215.254 (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Prof. River Song => own article?

Now we have two episodes featuring her and probably, deducing from those episodes, one or more to come in series 5 or later, I'd say she could warrant her own article, as we also gave Jenny her own article with only one appearance so far. Apparently Prof. Song will be quite close to the Doctor sometimes in the future, knowing even his real name, so I think she is an important character. What do you think? --SoWhy Talk 11:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't agree with Jenny getting an article, but if she does then River Song also should. U-Mos (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with U-Mos' argument above - if there was enough material in one episode to write an article about Jenny, there should be more than enough in two episodes to write one on Professor Song. All the more so given that the episode strongly suggested she would be returning in the future. Terraxos (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against one-off characters having their own article. Including Jenny and Astrid Peth, and - of course - River. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But Astrid was offically a companion, so surely warrants an article. But that's not the issue here. Jenny's article was created, put up for deletion and allowed to be kept. So if a good enough article were to be written about River Song (for instance, citing the numerous sources that speculate that she will return in the future), it would also be kept. U-Mos (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
While Astrid's companion status is debateable, I will nominate any River article for deletion, given her lack of notability (what needs its own article that can't be put in this one?). Even if a reliable source can be found, mention of return will be pure speculation nonetheless. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jenny's article was kept because there was a very sizable amount of real-world information about the creative process behind her conception. Try making one in your article namespace, and if it comes along well, how about a vote (a pre-emptive AfD, if you will...)~ZytheTalk to me! 16:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think she should have a page, cus she's clearly an important person in the Doctor's life. plus shes a companion on the same scale as Donna, Martha and Rose. talk 23:35, 8th June 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant! We must consider in what ways she, a fictional character, is notable in real life.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a Steven Moffat episode - was he setting up series 5, which he'll be head writer of, by introducing a new companion early? We'll have to wait and see, but if that does happen, she'll definitely deserve her own article. Until then, same status as Jenny (Find background info if it's to be kept). Digifiend (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That music I know

The music played on strings when River is uploaded has been used before, several times I think, as a vocal piece. I can't quite remember what it's from, but my mind connects it with Rose, and in particular to series 1. It may be what was used when she first saw the TARDIS, or when she manifested as Bad Wolf at the end of the series. It may have also been used when Elton saw the TARDIS in Love & Monsters (I remember recalling that from The Parting of the Ways at the time). Either way, if someone is sure what it was used in it's a notable reappearing motif imho. U-Mos (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I recognised it too and couldn't quite place it... I'll try to find out. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's one (near the end). I'm pretty sure that's what was used in L&M too, and we also have this quote from Rose (Doctor Who)#Production#Music which, if it refers to this, confirms other appearances: The music heard after the Doctor's speech about the "turn of the earth", as he walks towards the TARDIS, has a distinctive and eerie female vocal. On the DVD commentary of this episode, Russell T. Davies and Phil Collinson jokingly call this voice "President Flavia", a reference to a Time Lady character from The Five Doctors.[13] Davies says that this voice is heard "whenever it gets too Time Lord-y". It was also heard during the course of Series 1 in "The End of the World,",[7] "Boom Town,"[16] "Bad Wolf"[18] and "The Parting of the Ways."[17] The main point of interest is that it hasn't been used, I believe, for a long time in the series. We need confirmation on when it was last used and so forth to proceed though (I'm sure there are some DW music fanatic somewhere...). U-Mos (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the Doctor's them on the official soundtrack. Apparently a variation was used as recently as Partners in Crime, so I obviously just wasn't paying attention then. Not notable as it is then, I don't think. U-Mos (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're sure it's not "The Doctor Forever" - also a Doctor's theme on the second soundtrack? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure at all. If they're the same tune it could be taken from either. I'll listen to Doctor Forever when I'm at a computer with speakers. U-Mos (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's definitely the Doctor's theme. U-Mos (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit by Masem

I see an edit referring to ordering scenes, and I'm all ready for a quick revert. But I actually don't know which should remain. So which is better? There's only one way to find out: DISCCCUSSSS!!! U-Mos (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against any reordering. However, we need to keep the plot concise, and we need to keep the plot well understood. This episode is, if not more than the previous, extra confusing since there are 3 separate plot lines that touch but do not interact until the 2nd half. To me, it seems easier to separate out the 3 lines until it is necessary to say how they interact (at the point CAL starts the self-destruct sequence). Elements like the Doctor momentarily appearing to Donna, the girl causing the kid to strain his ankle, etc, are not absolutely necessary to appreciate the episode (IMO). Mind you, I don't think this is as rambling as I've seen other DW/TW episodes which I've helped to correct, so it's not absolutely necessary to improve like this. --MASEM 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
On a re-read, I think what you did was fine. It lets the first paragraph act as a sort of "intro" to the scenarios, and allows the seperate storylines to be explored seperately thereafter. U-Mos (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Words fail me...

[1] "Shock" is certainly not one that springs to mind! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of restoring that image to this article on the grounds that it significantly improves the reader's understanding of the scale of the library and, in the immediate context, the return of the thousands of missing people. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
How exactly does the image depict "the return of the thousands of missing people"? It depicts a number of people standing - but nothing more. Matthew (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but given the weekly debate with Matthew, I can't face providing arguments any more. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm...I would've have thought that that image was fine in terms of displaying the scale...How about one showing Miss Evangalista's distorted face? DonQuixote (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with an image of Miss Evangalista's distorted face, and I think(!) Will may upload that image. As for Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, I've no idea who you are. Matthew (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I may have had debates with Matthew in the past, but not in the past year or so. In any case, if he should be the only person who holds to his interpretation of the policy he cites on this matter, it isn't his decision.
On the Evangelista picture, I think that would also be an excellent choice for this article, because it graphically demonstrates the nature of the world in which Donna finds herself. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Either is acceptable to me (!) - how do you suggest we proceed? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no hurry. My favored method of handling this minor dispute would be to wait until someone uploads a picture that we agree here is acceptable. Examples that work for me include the one removed by Matthew, the proposed picture of Miss Evangelista as captured (in corrupted form) in the core program, or any of the following: CAL (The Girl) using her TV remote control on her father and making him disappear, The Doctor appearing before Donna in place of Doctor Moon when he briefly interrupts the moon's signal, the duplicated children in the playground, a still of the handcuffed Doctor after River Song's death (showing Euros Lyn's use of comic-book like lighting to achieve an epic, mythic, doom-laden atmosphere), River Song overpowering The Doctor, and The Girl watching The Doctor hanging from a building on her television. There are plenty of such scenes that, in still form, would greatly improve the reader's understanding of the episode. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[2] Perhaps using the BBC's official Doctor Who site images would be more acceptable. One such example could be the Vashda Nerada suit. Phil (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a Suit Creature one before and Matthew decided that I thought it wasn't allowed. :-( ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think such a picture would be ok as "it significantly improves the reader's understanding of the topic". --Cameron (T|C) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually rather like the idea of using a still of either Miss Evangelista's distorted face, the handcuffed Doctor, or Song as she sits in the chair. Those would greatly increase the understanding of the episode. I would recommend that the Vashta Nerada-occupied suit be used in the previous episode (as it would accomplish the same effect there). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There, a picture of the corrupted Miss Evangelista. Anyone have any objections? I'm hoping not, looking at the above discussion... TalkIslander 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to have to look at that every time I edit the article, but fair dos! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we could do better but will not raise any other objections if that is what consensus wants. --Cameron (T|C) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Islander! Matthew (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we aren't prohibited from adding a picture to the article, like for example, a despondent Doctor cuffed to a pole, reflecting on the loss of Song say, in plot summary. As it offers rather interesting insight into the pathos of the episode's end, I would support adding it. I'll dig around to find a still for it.
On a side note, in regards to the image being considered for removal from Last of the Time Lords, I seem to recall a scene where the doctor set alight a pyre with the Master's body on it. To my reckoning, this would be an exceptional image for use in the episode article, and sidestep any usage arguments. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

'Twould appear that the image is up for deletion again. Judging by the user's comments, they'll not approve of any screenshot. Not entirely sure where to go from here... it's strange that the NFCC rules are applied fairly throughout Wikipedia, but nowhere are they applied quite as rediculously stringently as these Doctor Who pages. The number of other screenshots, logos etc. etc. dotted about Wikipedia unecessarily is huge, so it surprises me that these receive all the attention. TalkIslander 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I wold imagine it has something (unfairly) to do with the presence of the highly original research-y continuity sections that might have inspired the crackdown. As well, images that really had little in the way of connection to the actual episode (aside from having been a screenshot from it) and are purely decorative. If we want out images to withstand scrutiny, they need to have substantial connection to the text.
Btw, you keep noting NFCC criteria that the other images are failing. Might you point me to the page where that criteria can be located? I've been to the NFCC page but do not see any criteria whch the images are apparently failing (decorative, etc.) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New images uploaded

Since folk seemed a tad unhappy with the choices presented to them for placeholder and other imagery, I've taken the liberty of uploading a number of images to choose from for use in this article. Please let me know here what you think of their relative usefulness in the article:

I think these show some of the pathos of the episode, and would be pretty useful in communicating the plot. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid they all fail NFCC, and they are in the wrong format. The current image on the article is quite OK. — Edokter • Talk • 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Explain how the format is wrong and what specific criteria of NFCC the images fail, pls. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Format: they're all in strange proportions - some standard screen, some widescreen, but none the standard size of 480 x 270 px aspect ratio. That's important. NFCC:
  1. The Doctor is handcuffed and looks concerned. So what?
  2. The Doctor bears his teeth - completely non-unique.
  3. It's a picture of River Song sitting down. Non-unique.
  4. Same as 1.
  5. Same as 1.
  6. Same as 1.
  7. OK, in fairness this probably would pass NFCC, in my own opinion. Format's still wrong, though, and I prefer the Miss Evangelista picture.
  8. Same as 1 (perhaps 'sad' instead of 'concerned').
With the exception perhaps of picture 7, none are unique. Also, in future situations like this, please don't upload a load of non-free stuff to Wikipedia - use Photobucket or summit' - by uploading them, you're violating NFCC. TalkIslander 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought I had been. I wasn't suggesting that these image choices (which have since been uploaded to Photobucket) should replace the infobox image. I offered them as choices for usage within the article.
As well, the image doesn't have to carry the article all by its lonesome; it does have to compliment and serve the text. Perhaps you are expecting a tad too much from images; don't worry - I suffer from the same problem most of the time. You can join my support group (Hello, my name is Arcayne, and I expect too muthif***in' much from my images. Hi Arcayne). :)
That said, I am unsure what you are referring to with format. I don't recall seeing specific criteria for a specific standard. Could I trouble you to point me to that, so I can boh adjust the pictures accordingly and ensure that I don't repeat such a grievous, 'chop-off-my-head-and-bury-it-where-I-can't-find-it' error in the future? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What you need to do is explain what you are trying to convey Fasach Nua (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, sorry about that. Okay, I would suggest that image #7 is of sufficient importance to replace the infobox image, freeing up the current image there to be used in the body of the plot summary. As well, I would utilize #1 or #8 towards the end of the plot section, so as to better illustrate the events at the end of the episode.
Instead of talking y'all to death, I prepared an example of what the changes would look like here. Of course, the image sizing is somewhat cocked up, and the captioning could use some fine-tuning, but those are fixable problems.
What are trying to convey with the images? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(←dent) I am presuming you are referring to the example edit. The infobox image illustrates the penultimate (and therefore the most important) scene of the episode, the self-sacrifice of Song. The placement of the two images in the Plot Summary serve to reinforce the text of the section. It is one thing to say Miss Evangelista is disfigured/distorted by a computer transcription error; it is all the more helpful to use an image which succinctly shows that. As well, the image of the handcuffed Doctor looking on in horror reinforces and better illuminates the text at the end of the plot summary regarding Song's sacrifice that he himself was willing to bear.
I have the oddest feeling I am being led into a snare...- Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the ammount that we're currently having to 'fight' (for want of a better expression) to keep the one screenshot in the infobox, I think that the use of others in the article is, right now, out of the question. TalkIslander 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Islander. = ) Keeping the one we've got is good enough (at least for now). Besides of the above pics, I think only 7 would pass NFCC. = ) --Cameron (T|C) 15:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The distorted face picture is scary! I like it! Anyways i agree with the islander keep it for now--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to re-ask the question: what part of NFCC would the images fail? I would point out that we were right to lose the prior image, as it did not make the article better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have warned both Arcayne and U-Mos that their edits on this page are approaching (technically passed in one case, but warning is necessary first) the WP:3RR limit. Discuss the topic first before making any additions or changes to the continuity section. --MASEM 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame this point was reached while the wrong reversion stood, but I have not reverted again and raised the issue in editor assistance as suggested. I urge others to take a look at this case and help what is clearly right to remain here. U-Mos (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sidestepping the immediate observation of canvassing, perhaps the user could instead take a very deep breath and re-examine their words here, particularlry the bit about the "wrong" version. This same user has been asked, cajoled and warned repeatedly about using the edit summaries of articles to editwar a version in in place of actual discussion.
Maybe the user will use the discussion page to assert why their edits are the "right" ones, and engage in discussion about them, instead of expecting the rest of us to simply agree with them. I would find that to be splendid. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the last time I will say this, as so far it has fallen completely on deaf ears. I have numerous times discussed the reasons said points should stay, and have numerous times had that issue completly ignored in favour of making snide comments towards my behaviour. The point you consistently refuse to aknowledge is that I am not claiming my edits should stand without discussion, YOU ARE. If you want things to change so dramatically, discussion comes before changes are made. You have consistently made changes at the same time as opening discussion, or not discussing at all (which is assuming that people are on your side, I might add). I never once said consensus agreed with me, but that so far comments went against what you proposed. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, in fact you are the one who has, I recall, made wild claims that all admins would agree with you about two hours before one didn't in Talk:Silence in the Library#Removed paragraphs in continuity. Every comment I make you warp into a personal attack on you, which has never for a second been my intention. Your edits have been consistently rude, arrogant, at times offensive (which I believe was not your intention either, but when I pointed this out you decided to "ban" me from your talk page), and your constant assumation that you are right and whoever opposes you is wrong, with a complete unwillingness to compromise, will never help to get you anywhere. One final note: canvassing involves posting on users' talk pages to gain support, something I have not done. This is the latest in a long list of false accusations I have received from you. U-Mos (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I am glad this is the last time you will post on it; I certainly hope it's actually the case this time. I find your statements well, ludicrous, and varying from mildly to wildly inaccurate. However, this isn't the venue to appropriately correct them. Since you've gotten it out of your system now, we can move forward.
Again, I am glad this is your last series of personal attacks. Here's to hoping you can actually keep that promise. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity bits

Okay, instead of simply pushing our own versions of what is and isn't the better version, let's now discuss what is specifically non-trivial, non-crufty and absolutely vital to the article, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bernice and squareness gun - cited, relevant. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Bad Wolf picture and previously used wedding dress. "Not one line" quote is not especially relevant so is not a necessary re-inclusion, but "everybody lives" is from another Moffat episode and is said in a more prominent fashion = explicit connection between the two and not synthesis to note. U-Mos (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Anything cited by the BBC fact file is fair game for notability, but everything not (for example, the sonic lipstick) would be classed as original research.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the sonic lipstick point is a bit iffy. But I still think "everybody lives" should be in there. U-Mos (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The everybody lives bit seems to be a simple line taken out of context, and should be cited specifically to Moffat, since the synthesized connection is the writer himself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by this. There is no context to take out of as both times the line is spoken independently, and I don't follow "cited specifically to Moffat". U-Mos (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The line is spoken by different people in different situations. If Moffat has said that he used the line to link the situations together, that's one thing. If it is you saying 'hey, I've heard someone say that before', that is you adding your interpretation that they are related. We cannot do that,a s our connections and interpretations aren't usable in this encyclopedia.
In regards to the items that you've already noted as OR or not necessary, were you planning on removing them, or may I? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing the items bit, as the only point of those still remaining is the sonic lipstick one. But I'm happy to remove this, as a compromise is something I'm prepared to work for. As for "everybody lives", I don't agree with you on that one so we'll need another view. Another view, anyone? U-Mos (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(←dent) I don't mind getting a second view, but what about the point do you not agree with? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that the quote is abstract or irrelevant enough to require a linking citation. The BBC fact file mentions that everybody has lived (barring natural causes) in Moffat's stories under the sub-heading "everybody lives", will that suffice? U-Mos (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you 'feel' it doesn't need citation, but any time citation is requested, it is no longer your prerogative to determine what doesn't need citation. If it is asked for, it is provided, or the statement is removed. This is policy and guidelines, in case you were under the impression this was just me. By the way, you are at 3RR for the day. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, is the BBC fact file enough? U-Mos (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
And btw, how is the dress notable and vital to the episode? I see the citation, but I am not seeing how it is vital to the episode instead of non-notable cruft. Please explain, using policy and guidelines, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not VERY notable, it's not essential, but it's not NON-notable as such. It's not like there's a whole paragraph detailing it; it warrants a mention in the paragraph whose subject is the re-use of props/items from previous episodes. U-Mos (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are incorrect, U-Mos - we aren't discussing the re-use of props. Items that are used in the episode that are cited and have relevance to the article are notable. The trivia that they seamstress used the same dress as before isn't notable. Pointedly, because with the squareness gun, they used a term that had come up before. Donna Noble never said, 'hey, this is my old wedding dress', and it had exactly zero bearing on the plot that it was the same dress. Ergo, its trivia. I am sorry, but you must be able to see that I am being reasonable here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
And I would like you to self-revert your re-addition of the dress cruft, please. The discussion regarding that topic is not even close to compromise/solution, and noting the addition as per talk offers the appearance that it was an agreed issue. I think it rather clear that it is not agreed upon. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in no way saying it's agreed. The fact of the matter is two people who have posted in this section so far are happy with it being there, and one isn't. So although it is not at all a case closed, as it stands it should be in there. Whereas no one's saying it has a bearing on the plot, that's not really a matter. It being the same gun didn't have bearing on the plot, nor did the pictures in the room (not that they should be deleted, of course). It's still notable. Also, even if this is trivia, trivia is not outlawed in Wikipedia. Trivia sections are discouraged, not "all trivial information should be removed on sight". U-Mos (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's enough trivia in the article, U-Mos, and let us rest assured that it is trivia, and as such is bloat that we don't need in the article. I will be removing it shortly, "per talk page". Please seek a larger consensus than two people, please, or perhaps extend a bit more of that compromise. If the case isn't "closed" as you say, then the matter should be left out until it is agreed that it should be in, and that it is in accordance with policy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be fair, it won't be "per talk page" as there is nothing on the talk page agreeing with its removal. But I can't stop you removing it. Again, I never claimed two people to be a consesnsus. If you would like to explain how it could be reworded to be less trivial, in your opinion, that would be most welcome. U-Mos (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Being fair, there is nothing within this discussion (or policy and guidelines, for that matter) that successfully argues for its inclusion. It is fancruft. It is trivial and non-notable. It doesn't belong. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the wedding dress info is relevant to the production of this episode, and the BBC evidently feel it is too, hence including it in the fact-file. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, please explain how the wedding dress re0use is vital to the understanding of the episode. If it is not vital, it is - by definition - trivial. And BBC does what it can to fill up bits of cruft for the fans' insatiable appetite for trivia. Last time I checked, this isn't the Doctor Who Wikipedia. We don't pander to the fans here. Ever. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with U-mos and treasury tag the dress is part of her character she is a bride who loses her potential husband twice--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, time to step in here... Arcayne, you seem to be under the impression that all included information must be essential to the understanding of the article, and therefor, all "trivia" must be removed. That is not the case. Any information, no matter how "trivial", provided it can be cited, can be included. Wikipedia discourages the inclusion of trivia sections, but also recommends including it in the prose of the article instead.
Now regarding the dress... this information can be cited to the MP3 commentary, so it is valid information. I agree with you on one thing; it should not be in the Continuity section. Re-used item should be mentioned in the Production section instead, if those items do not establish any story continuity (such as the squareness gun), and as such, the dress has no place in the Plot section. This should give everyone enought to work it out. — Edokter • Talk • 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Was just about to post the same thing, and noting that as an admin, this is easily becoming 3RR-type behavior even if its not exactly 3RR in the same 24hrs. Moving the dress bit to production was also going to be my suggestion (damn you, Edokter!) since its about a prop, not about the story. --MASEM 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, if you can find a policy that states: "Any information not essential to the understanding of the article is not permissible", then please do. Until then, please accept our word that there is no such policy. Noting that the episode is written by Steven Moffat is not essential to the understanding of the subject... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(←dent) Lerd: actually, it is you making that emotive assessment that is driving you to include the matter. Your emotional connection of the two are not citable, and are in fact synthesis - as it "advances a position", specifically, the prior marriage.
EDokter: with respect, while wiki articles are not paper, they are also not wide collections of trivial information. I disagree in the strongest possible terms that an information doesn't need to be essential to the understanding of the the article it is contained in. You of course are welcome to indicate, via quoted policy where cruft and trivia are allowed, and that info not essential to the understanding of the subject of the article can be included. I haven't found that part of the rules or guidelines just yet, but WP is a big place. Show me where we advocate trivia and cruft, please. As well, you know as well as I that just because info can be cited doesn't necessarily make it notable or non-trivial. If the info can be reliably cited, and people having a burning need to include it, I would compromise and agree to its inclusion in production, which is where something like that would belong (if at all). All in all, that is going to be the very best compromise in regards to the dress, I think.
Masem: I agree that the reverting is extremely tedious. When folk revert the crufty trivia in, I am the bad giuy for following policy and either removing or tagging it. Not the best way to engender a polite atmosphere of professionalism. In fact, it often leads me to believe that the fans try to rule this page, and policy is merely an inconvenience that complicates the inclusion of the aforementioned crufty trivia (called, uniquely - as it appears in few if any of our wiki-articles - continuity). I am stating, point-blank that the inclusion of this info is largely synthesis, almost certainly non-notable and virtually entirely fancruft. I have been arguing policy. Anyone care to note - via actual policy - how I am incorrectly interpreting our synthesis policy? I haven't actually heard anyone noting such yet.
TT: I would be delighted to point those areas that non-essential info isn't needed (mind you, permissible comes in later, during candidacy discussions for elevation of the material):
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:
As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia...Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works
MOS (Writing about fiction):
Presenting fictional material from the original work is fine, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research.a
It is important that articles give due weight to all aspects of the subject, and to avoid placing undue emphasis on minor points. This concerns all elements of the article page, including infoboxes and succession boxes as well as images and the text b.
Undue Weight:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
Synthesis of published material which advances a position:
Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
Cruft: Tone and Focus:
One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world. Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception.
I hopes that helps you understand my point of view in regards to this diuscussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a little suggestion. Instead of just reverting or deleting continuity notes, how about inserting a "citation needed" tag to begin with, and then after an appropriate length of time if no citation has been added, then remove the "fancruft". This will not only add a little more weight to your actions, but it will also give others a bit more time to find the citations. DonQuixote (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've actually tried that before, DonQ, and they get reverted out with edit summaries exclaiming that there isn't need for citations. As well, we aren't just talking about citable versus uncited items, we are also pointing out that not everything that can be cited is useful to the article and is in fact trivial or fancruft or both. If it isn't a helpful part of the article, it doesn't belong, sin ce it is, by definition, bloat. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"Anyone care to note - via actual policy - how I am incorrectly interpreting our synthesis policy?" What the hell? You're expecting policy to cover the interpretation of policy? U-Mos (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I am pointing out that I am reiterating policy, not interpreting it. My request was to offer you an opportunity to pull up (any) valid guidelines, policies and/or rules that supports your oft-iterated notion that the info in question is not trivial, non-notable or simply fancruft. I have pointed out why it shouldn't be included, noting policy, as per the request. Now, you can take a moment (if you so desire) to present in the same format why the info is not trivial, non-notable or fancrufty. Sorry if my response was confusing to you; it was not intentional. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just like to point out that continuity isn't necessarily "bloat". In fact, it's a valid field of study. See, for example, the study of Sherlock Holmes and the study of King Arthur. DonQuixote (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(after discussing the matter with DonQ off-page). Were someone to cite the more notable of these points to the DH DisContinuity Guide(which might be impossible, as the book was published in '04, too early to cite a current episode), think most of our problems would be resolved. Once the citations are out of the way, we just have to sift through the relevant the notable and the superfluous to find that which makes the article a more cohesive one, and avoid anything that adds what isn't necessary fro the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Behind the Doctor's name

Could someone with better clasic series knowledge than me confirm that the "secret" behind the Doctor's name was first explored in The Girl in the Fireplace? Doctor (Doctor Who)#Doctor who? implies it, but is not specific. U-Mos (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In interviews, Moffat, the writer of Fireplace and this episode, mentions that his theory as to why the Doctor never reveals his name, even to his closest friends, is because there's some terrible secret associated with it. So, it's a new thing. In Trial of a Time Lord, the Sixth Doctor mentions writing a paper about Ravalox "by Dr..." before Peri interrupts him. DonQuixote (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, I thought as much. Thanks. U-Mos (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So long as someone provides a citation for this mentioning, everything should be copaceptic. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was in the episode. Will just citing The Girl in the Fireplace be suuficient, because there's really nothing else to cite. U-Mos (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about the mention. I am talking about the comparison, which is what needs connection of the Doctor's name, so as to avoid the same old problem of synthesis. The synthesis issue? You are not citable, and therefore cannot make those connections, whereas a citation that says that is perfectly fine. You need to cite where Moffat made that connection, as you claimed he has. Without it, we cannot use it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No comparison is made. The secret nature of the Doctor's true name is in this episode, as it was in the other episodes mentioned. That's pure fact. U-Mos (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Take a moment and please re-read what you wrote. First you say no comparison is made, and then you compare this episode with others. The comparison where you note the "secret nature" of the Doctor's name is your observation. If you can cite Moffat saying it, we can use it; if not, then we only have you comparing them, and that is synthesis - ie, you, advancing a position that they are related. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no comparison though! A comparison would be analysing, drawing a conclusion, making assumptions. We are simply noting that the episode covers the recurring theme of the Doctor's true name (as the episode aired in the last hour also did, which I will add). U-Mos (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are evaluating that there is a common theme. That is an analysis that draws a conclusion. That you do so without citation makes that evaluation an assumption. I will ask you not to add any further cruft until we are concluded with this matter. This is the third time I've asked you to not add info without citation. Please respect my request. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

To be frank, I haven't added anything new, bar one further episode in this point, while this discussion has been ongoing. You can reiterate the above point as many times as you like, but I still don't agree. To clarify: you believe that every continuity point in the whole of Wikipedia requires a citation? Because if so, this would once more be a project-wide (if not Wikipedia-wide) issue. U-Mos (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are misconstruing (and exaggerating) the point. Continuity sections are unnecessary because they attract cruft and tend to advocate unsourced synthesis. Because of this fairly obvious observation by the body Wiki, continuity sections aren't in that many articles - and in fact, they are in their greatest concentration in the Doctor Who episode articles only. Do I advocate a clean-up of DH articles to be more in line with our other articles? Absolutely; the is is an encyclopedia - its the way things are supposed to be. The larger question is, why anyone would think that DH articles deserve a consideration not afforded any other article in Wikipedia? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, The Discontuinuity Guide and The Television Companion have numerous notes on continuity, so we can cite them. The Doctor Who website has numerous notes on continuity (many of which are from The Television Companion), so we can cite them (particularly the newer episodes). We can also cite Doctor Who Magazine which also has continuity notes. DonQuixote (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be SPLENDID. I wish more folk here were more interested in finding sources than complaining about how their favorite bits of fancruft were getting repeatedly tossed out of the article. So long as the cited bits vitally contribute to the understanding of the article, I have no problem with them being in. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forest_of_the_Dead/Archive_1&oldid=1140129008"