Talk:Silence in the Library

Date

It still states that it will be broadcast on 24th May. Is there any proof to back-up that as it may be prostponed due to the Eurovision song contest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.255.84 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's now an official press-release. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

But what basis is there for the article to state that it was delayed/deferred? The BBC would have scheduled the season around Eurovision months ago. If Wikipedia editors had created articles for future episodes and calculated dates without taking that into account, that's no reason now to say that it was deferred. Sure, there was a one-week gap in the schedule, but it's not notable enough to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't material for the lead. We're not a program guide, and while schedule details may be important they're not that important. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Daleks

In DWA this week, it previews next issue and it says WHAT'S NEXT? with a picture of the Daleks. Can this be referenced? 91.109.107.118 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because they're not in this episode. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Groovy--the LSPlord. xxx 91.110.13.188 (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image (groan)

So, Matt has removed the image from this and Forest of the Dead with a typically terse edit-summary. What's our approach forward - do what's right or agree with him? —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll set you straight as this appears to be your belief: following the non-free content policy is not optional. Perhaps—assuming the desperation for an image is that strong—you could write up a few paragraphs of text that would require a non-free image. Matthew (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a slight adjustment to the article; perhaps you could help out and suggest some material yourself that would require a non-free image! I'm sure lots of people would appreciate that, and it's also (as you're doubtless aware) beneficial to Wikipedia which ought to be the point of people editing.

Also, I'm curious as to which bit of my message suggested I thought that the NFCC was an optional policy... all I suggested was that you could (shock, horror) have been wrong, the time with the image here springs to mind. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your slight adjustment (a passing mention) does not increase the need for a non-free image in any way (WP:NFCC#8). Why do you believe the article needs a non-free image ("suggest some material yourself that would require a non-free image")?

I did not suggest that your message conveyed my belief that you believe NFCC is optional. I merely stated my impression. Matthew (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(direct question which really requires a 'yes' or 'no' answer) Matthew, would you be prepared to make a positive effort to help out by suggesting a passage that could go in the article, which would merit the use of a non-free image? —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As always, of course I'm willing to offer suggestions (if I have any) for text that would bring the article into compliance with the non-free content policy. Heck, I'd even bring the article up to spec myself if I believed the absence of an image would be detrimental to the article. Matthew (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean "no"? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I said. Thanks! Matthew (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Either you were preapared to do so or you were not; it was a "yes" or "no" issue. Since you declined to do so, the answer to the question I asked was "no". Please use your loaf! —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We can argue all day whether my answer was a "yes" or a "no", but I'm not sure if you'll realise that it was neither. Don't expect me to entertain that discussion though. Matthew (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I never expectedyou to entertain! —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Geek war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.234.143 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm all for images in articles, did this or Forest of the Dead really need one right now? When the episodes air there might be plenty of potential images that are far more interesting informative. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The current Wikipedia policy mandates that images cannot be decorative. Until the episode airs (or until someone reveals something huge) most images will be merely decorative. Please wait until the episode is broadcast so that any image we choose can be justified according to the new policy. If you disagree with the policy, please discuss the matter at the approriate place and not weekly in each new episode article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't the page been updated?

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

Why hasn't the page been updated? The episode aired last saturday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.126.196 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No it didn't, it was put back a week because of Eurovision. 78.149.88.25 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:49, 27 May 2008 (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.

51st century

Radio Times says this two-parter is set in the 51st century - which is of course Jack Harkness and K-9's home era! Digifiend (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also the century of Moffat's previous story "The Girl in the Fireplace".-Markeer 02:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Image released to press

The Sun has printed a picture of the suit creature. I know it can't be used here, but the newspaper noted that it looks exactly like a villain from a 1969 Scooby-Doo episode! Might be worth noting that. Digifiend (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Really, no :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He didn't say he thought it looked like a monster from a 1969 Scooby-Doo episode which would be original research, he said the newspaper said that which is a published source which while is original research on their behalf isn't original research in wikipedia's terms. However unless there is a source stating that the monster is based off the Scooby-Doo monster then the comparison is just unnecessary trivia which at the moment it appears to be so I must so no to the adding but for different reasons to TreasuryTag. The Light6 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A skeleton in a spacesuit isn't an original image. (See Frank Hampson's episode of Fireball XL5 1965). It's only a short step to have it moving. Unless the space suit design is similar .... ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

time to add the synopsis?

Now i feel it is time not only to add the synopsis but to add a picture to the article not just for decorative reasons though, since the episode has aired we can add a suitable picture to the article.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No rush... I'll watch the episode in peace and find a suitable image. — Edokter • Talk • 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the odds for another argument? I say 1:26.39 ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope not, come on its finished now so we can find a suitable image, what more do these fair use warriors want? Can't we just block them if they start arguing again, personally i think they are being disruptive.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Suit Creature

Anyone know what this was? The closest I can think of is the Vashta Nerada skeleton, but that's never named. Is there another thing that I missed, will it be something from next episode, or should we just remove the name from the article as it's not been used (yet)? --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's given as the Vashta Nerada animating the skeleton and/or the suit. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jason Pitt

Ooh! Another thing! Jason Pitt is listed in the infobox, with a TBA. He's not on the [BBC cast list]. Anyone know who he is? I added him to the article based on DWM, so presumambly he'll be in FotD. Should we remove him? --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't mentioned in the programme's credits, but then again neither was Anita. steveking89 19:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

oops, i double checked and Anita was mentioned :D steveking89 19:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?

Pardon me if this seems to be a bit of a thick question, or if i'm missing something, but why has no one rushed to add a larger synopsis or continuity section like in all the pervious episodes? steveking89 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think that breaking out the Prof. Song and the girl scenes out of the main plot makes it much clearer and condensed than trying to explain scene-by-scene. --MASEM 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Errors in Synopsis

The Doctor asks the computer specifically to scan for humanoid life (not just human life – he is not human himself) before widening the search for all life forms. The Courtesy Drones are in fact Nodes, but the article is currently locked against editing. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --MASEM 02:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence still reads 'Drone', not 'Node'. Radagast (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. DonQuixote (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Since the episode aired about 16 hours ago shouldn't we unprotect the page? (I'd hate for anyone to add speculation about FotD though.) 129.67.53.232 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been protected for 48 hours - seems reasonable to me. _TalkIslander 12:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It was left unprotected for 23 minutes after broadcast, during which time there were loads of IPs adding in complete rubbish; it's the only way to stop the article being trashed. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Overnight ratings

"For the first time since the series returned in 2005, the programme did not win its timeslot."[1] 212.32.113.245 (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. U-Mos (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity section

Is info from the bbc website really relevant? It isn't really part of the episode. Instead one could mention the books that the Doctor mentions on screen (eg. Bridgit Jones, Geoffrey Archer Monty Python). --Cameron (T|C) 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no mention of the drawings on the walls in the little girl's living room. One of the pictures looks like Rose with a second picture below it of a Wolf. - Jeremy 67.170.4.25 (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I also noticed the wolf and drawing of a blonde girl behind CAL when she was talking to Dr Moon at around the 30min mark in "silence in the library". I'm not sure if the wolf is what it seems though. It does not appear to have any ears (to me). But that could the be artistic licence of a little girl. The other drawings done by CAL did not seem to have any obvious resemblence to anyone or anything we have seen already in the series.--Qualal (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ok now I get it, I just noticed that there was in fact a reference to the drawings at one stage and this was removed because it was considered an example of synthesis. I agree that identifying the drawings as Rose and Bad Wolf are synthesis since we cannot know that is what they are for sure. I guess we will just have to wait and see if they are properly confirmed in later episodes! --Qualal (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know, we hates the Trivia, but...

In the girl's house, there's a little Robby the Robot toy (can be seen over her shoulder when she's looking at the Doctor on TV)... if there's a suitable place at some point, somebody feel free to add this in. --umrguy42 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as particularly notable... _TalkIslander 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode reference

Sorry to bother you but isn't the reference The French Revolution to An Unearthly Child wrong and should be to The Girl in the Fireplace? I only have seen the beginning of An unearthly child and it did seem very french revolutionny to me...I don't edit directly as I may be wrong. Someone please correct if I am right. Napy1kenobi (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The book in question is, I believe, read by Susan Forman in "An Unearthly Child". The revolution is only mentioned once in GitF I think.--OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 10:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

An Unearthly Child was set in the present day and 100,000BC (i.e. caveman times). The historical scenes in Fireplace were set not long before the Revolution. Digifiend (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but surely the relevent point is that there wasn't a book about the French Revolution in "Fireplace", and there was one, titled The French Revolution in "Child". Daibhid C (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I've removed, for the time being, the section on reception. The only source here seems to be some fan site (and what's more the links seem to be flaky). Let's wait for newspaper reports based on the overnights. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallifrey One is defenitely not "some fan site"; they are a reputable source when it comes to aggragating news regarding Doctor Who topics. Their ratings and index come directly form sources like BARB and the BBC. Please do not remove it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I searched BBC and BARB for confirmation. I also checked The Guardian, which hasn't yet commented on Saturday's overnights. Could you support your claim that the GallifreOne information came from either BARB or the BBC? As I said, the links were flaky so I couldn't actually see any content. If they cited either source it obviously isn't evident from an empty page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Gallifrey One has press-access to sources which are not open to the public. So while we cannot verify their sources, they have proven themself to be a reputable and reliable source. — Edokter • Talk • 19:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "press access"? You mean they get some kind of press release that isn't available publicly? This sounds a little odd, I have to say. Are you sure? Doesn't BARB put information out on the wires like everybody else? Ah never mind I read their rate card for registration and the rate for access to Overnights. But how do I test this claim of reliability? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't... it's a matter of trust, just like the newspapers. Gallifrey One hes been around for a while and has build a reputation for being trustworthy with their news stories. — Edokter • Talk • 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And just as much of a rep for crufty speculation, too. I suggest that if it is in fact noteworthy and reliable, a mainstream news organ will snatch it up. We aren't in a hurry here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the BARB will issue its public, final figures based on overnights adjusted for time shifting, quite soon. The figures for the week ending 25 May are up now, so the final figures for this broadcast, which was made during the week ending 1 June, will be available within a week. There's no hurry; it's better to wait until we can use known, reliable sources than to resort to fan sites. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* There is the forum and there is the news page; please do not confuse the two. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity Errors

Is it worth mentioning that Moffat's first published Doctor Who fiction, the story "Continuity Errors" in Decalog 3: Consequences was also set in a planet-sized library? Daibhid C (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, if the fiction story shares a little bit more than only a similar location with this episode. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Data Ghost

Link "Data Ghost" to "Ghost in the shell" ? Ghost in the Shell (philosophy)#Ghosts --gon 18:02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not the same things. "Data Ghost" in Doctor Who is like an echo. "Ghost in the Shell" deals with the definition of consciousness itself. DonQuixote (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Squareness Gun

I've removed this for now because I don't recall it, so can someone please confirm that Rose called Jack's sonic blaster a "squareness gun" in "The Doctor Dances"? U-Mos (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, she definitely did. Confirmed. ^DAVID _CAT 17:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it is synthesis to note it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how in the section below. U-Mos (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs in continuity

• The "squareness gun" used by River Song works in the same way as Captain Jack Harkness' "sonic blaster", seen in the first series episode "The Doctor Dances" (also written by Moffat). However, in this episode the Doctor does not appear to disagree with its use as he did before.

• The Doctor also mentions that he loves "a little shop", a sentiment previously expressed in the episodes "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones".

There is no reason for these paragraphs to be removed, as they are both blatant and deliberate nods to previous episodes. As per the section above, Rose's coining of the term "squareness gun" can be mentioned in the former paragraph. I concede that the last sentence of the first paragraph is borderline, and it is worthy of discussion whether it can be mentioned or not (in adding it, I felt this change of opinion is notable in a section on continuity, but due to the briefness of its appearance and the circumstances surrounding it this could be seen as interpretation). But the rest must stay. U-Mos (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course they should both be in there. If you think they should be in there, why did you delete them? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, Arcayne did. Then I reverted, and he reverted back. So to the talk page I went. I'll wait for him to state his reason, and then if there's consensus for it they can be re-added. U-Mos (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously relevant material. Re-addition should take place now, and anyone who wants the material deleted should appeal on the talk page, not the other way around.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, although I am still curious as to why Arcayne took objection to the points in the first place. U-Mos (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Does the Doctor actually "disagree with it's use" though? Far as I can remember, he actually asks CJH if he has a blaster, and uses it himself. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 20:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was Jack that asked the Doctor if he had any sonic implements, and banter ensued between the two with the Doctor implying he had destroyed the blaster factory and it now had a bannana plantation there ("I like bannanas. Bannanas are good."). As far as the Doctor using it himself, I only recall Rose firing it to the floor to save them, and I imagine if the Doctor did use it it would have been in a similar no-other-option situation. Like the one in Silence in the Library, which leads me on to my doubts over whether the sentence should be included. U-Mos (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in U-Mos' usertalk space, drawing those connections is synthesis, a part of our No Original Research policy. The reference about the doctor liking a little shop being connected to earlier instances when he has said this is synthesis, as it is us (the editor) making that connection, and not a citable, notable, reliable source. The same goes for the squareness gun reference. That something recurs in different episodes isn't really that notable. The bit on the protocol is important (notable), as it is a fairly significant plot device, and it is also referenced within the episode by the characters. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority of inclusions in the continuity sections of this sort of entry could be labeled as useless trivia. In fact, there isn't a single bit of information in the continuity section that could not be dismissed by your argument, including the bit about protocol (considering the protocol isn't even activated, thus not at all integral to the plot). This suggest that the line you draw is arbitrary. Regardless, we seem to have a consensus.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly urge you to reconsider. Some items in the continuity section seem less synthesis than others, so I left them. However, if you consider my statemetn of policy to be an arbitrary line, I can easily remove the rest, as they are still synthetic claims. Please be aware that consensus does not override policies. Maybe consult an admin on the matter, or seek out an RfC; I think I am correctly interpreting policy, but you should feel free to explain how the items are not synthesis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not synthesis. Squareness gun, little shop, and so on are all easily referenced by previous episodes. Stating that it was mentioned in said episode is no more synthesis than saying Song is reluctant to answer questions. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong, and I will explain why, Penguin. Song's reluctance to answer questions about spoilers is stated in the episode; ie, it is part of the episode content.

In order to mention how the squareness gun and the little shop have come up before (without external references) is the individual editor creating that connection - in other words, synthesizing the connection between the previous episode where the little shop info came up, and the one in this article. We do not get to connect the dots, Penguin. We cite other people who do that. In point of fact, creating that connection is original research, as the editors doing so are contributing their previous knowledge of the episodes to create a connection between them. As original research is prohibited in any article in Wikipedia, it cannot remain here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not synthesizing. Synthesizing is drawing a conclusion. There is no conclusion to these assorted facts, merely the simple fact that they have been mentioned before. It is not synthesis to state that the term squareness gun has been used or who used it, nor is it to point out the little shop reference. The only thing that could be considered synthesis in that entire section is the opening paragraph, which has the explict mention of referencing previous episodes. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I would advise you to perhaps read the policy (or again, if you had skimmed it). Synthesis is you collating these bits of information (without citation) into an order that serves to create a connection that is not cited or explicit in the episode. This is not my interpretation, this is policy. By noting that these bits have been pointed out before in previous episodes, you are writing these bits through the interpretive filter of yourself and arranging them thusly. That, my friend, is synthesis.

However, let's examine the points, one by one:

1. As shown on the BBC Doctor Who website, there are a number of books in the library that reference previous episodes. Among those seen are the operating manual for the TARDIS, Origins of the Universe (Destiny of the Daleks), The French Revolution (An Unearthly Child), the Journal of Impossible Things ("Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood"), The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (written by Douglas Adams, former Doctor Who writer and script editor), Everest in Easy Stages (The Creature from the Pit) and Black Orchid (a book first seen in the Fifth Doctor serial of the same name).

Penguin already agrees that this is synthesis, and I concur. It should be removed, as it requires the filter of the editor (what we call synthesis) to evaluate the importance of each book.

2. The Doctor mentions that, should Donna be left in the TARDIS alone for five hours, "emergency program one" would activate and send her home. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home.

While this is also synthesis, it could be reworded to note that this is a protocol in place. The reason I advocate this more than the others is that it was something actually discussed in the episode.

3. The "squareness gun" used by River Song works in the same way as Captain Jack Harkness' "sonic blaster", seen in the first series episode "The Doctor Dances" (also written by Moffat). In that episode, Rose Tyler coined the term "squareness gun", which the Doctor re-uses here.

It is synthesis to determine that the squareness gun functions the same way as Harkness' blaster. As well, the connection with Rose naming it such is synthesis, as the Doctor did not explain why he calls it a squareness gun.

4. The psychic paper has previously summoned the Doctor to a location in "New Earth", where the Face of Boe called the Doctor to his supposed deathbed.

As well, this is okay, as it relates a fact that the psychic paper can be used to summon the doctor, as River Song sent the message that brought the Doctor to the Library in the first place. It could do with a citation, though.

5. The Doctor also mentions that he loves "a little shop", a sentiment previously expressed in the episodes "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones".

Unfortunately, this is rather non-notable and crufty as hell. So what if the Doctor likes a little shop? Were it truly pertinenet, it would be in the article about the Doctor, not an episode where the mentioning of it has very, very little bearing on the plot (aside from the teleporters being located there). Also, drawing a connection between the times he has mentioned this is synthesis.

There it is, point by point. If necessary, file an RfC. As I mentioned before, consensus doesn't ever get to override policy, and policy is pretty clear on this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs in continuity, arbitrary break 1

Policy is also open to interpretation, and I still do not see this as synthesis. It isn't advancing a position. It is noting a corollary between one episode and another. It isn't synthesis to note the use of the emergency program, nor more than it would be to note what episodes the Doctor was shot in. Same with the shop. The squareness gun is likewise not synthesis. Doc says it straight out: it's a squareness gun, and the exact same effect is used, though not the same prop. It's just a list of facts. Some other policy might apply to arguably pointless fact lists, but SYn ain't it. Also, as suggested on your talk page or another with whom you've been speaking (Theplanetsaturn, I think), what you're arguing would be a standard that should be applied to every page, not simply this one. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines are indeed open to interpretation, but there is pretty solid consensus throughout the wiki that this sort of "corollary noting" is indeed synthesis. As for the policy being applied to all of the eps, you bet. If they are crufty, they will be cleaned. Let's start here. Might I suggest you seek the input of an admin in regards to this matter? I don't mind submitting an RfC, but I am hoping that there will not be a need if you receive outside confirmation of what i have been pointing out. However, if you don't wish to consilt with someone else about this, and are absolutely steadfast i your opinion, we can proceed immediately to RfC. Understand that this is synthesis as it exists as policy. It is my intention to help this article follow that policy. Let me know what you decide, Penguin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to see examples of that consensus first. The definition as it is given in the policy says nothing of what we speak. It only speaks of making original research out of it, which is not present in this fact listing. I would wait for comments from others than those already present. There's a bunch of editors on these articles, someone is liable to show up. A request for comment would likely speed the matter along if you want quicker results, so however you want to go with it is fine. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only do you seem to be grossly literalising the guidelines on synthesis, you seem to not understand at all the use of a continuity section. The whole point of such a section is to take aspects of the episode that reference and mimc (or conversley, contradict) previous episodes. To take up the little shop point again, it's not "the Doctor has been helped by a shop before, yet this time the shop is a bit different" kind of thing. That WOULD be synthesis. The exact same phrase is used as in previous episodes, and the line is in the script purely as a nod to regular viewers. It doesn't really get any more continuity-worthy. And the squareness gun, it's not "ooh, it's a bit like something we've seen before", it's the same weapon used in the same way and given the same name. Again, it wouldn't have been in the episode at all if it was not for its previous appearance. Linking these events together is not synthesis, as it's the whole point of their respective appearances to do so. I'm now going to quote the other continuity points that were synthesis, and were quite rightly removed, so people can see how different their cases are:

• In the scene in which Doctor Moon tells the girl that her dream is a reality, drawings can be seen in the background that depict Rose Tyler and the Bad Wolf.

• In The Tomb of the Cybermen, the Second Doctor also runs into an archeological expedition where the rich patron and the head archeologist don't see eye to eye.

• The Doctor's "first" encounter with Professor River Song is similar to the Doctor's "first" encounter with Queen Elizabeth the First who had already met him and wanted his head cut off for reasons unknown to him in "The Shakespeare Code". The Sixth Doctor also met Melanie Bush, a companion from his personal future, in Terror of the Vervoids.

These three points all do link to earlier events unnecessarily, the last two particularly just linking the events of this episode to similar occurences in the show's history. (The first could remain with a reference or in light of future episodes, but as it is it's just fan speculation.) These are a world apart from the two points in question, which make relevant and notable connections that were intended by the writer. U-Mos (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Treasury tag, U-Mos and The rogue penguin on this one, it is not synthesizing stop deleting it, synthesizing is drawing up our own conclusions or using the continuality to tell the future (see wikipedia is not a crystal ball), we are not doing these we are simply mentioning these things have happened before in the Doctor's adventures which is true, please don't be a policy warrior we have had numourous arguments over the images policy with Matthew and Fasha nua already.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the third one should be in there, it's usually a nod to previous episodes. The first one is speculation imho (as the picture of a blond woman does not mean it's Rose) and the second is pure coincidence I think. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

U-Mos: while it is true that I strictly and literally interpret our synthesis policy, it has the virtue of catching original research and renders a better article. I of course understand what a continuity section is for; I am stating that it isn't of necessary or encyclopedic value , and that its very presence is a magnet for precisely the sort of personal interpretations that is forbidden in the encyclopedia. Every one of the points that you and I both mentioned needed a catalyst to put the items together. That is synthesis, plain and simple. What I am suggesting is that you find citations (that meet our criteria for inclusion) of someone who is making those connections. If I am not mistaken, there is usually a Doctor Who episode tv discussion after each episode. Surely some of this information could be found there. If you want the information to remain, it needs to be cited externally, just like the trivia in other articles. We cannot be the ones making these connections, as it represents original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not the ones making connections, the writers are. The "catalyst" comes from them. The policy does not reject these cases as they draw no conclusions, so we are looking for a consesus. It seems to me we have one. U-Mos (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the writers are not saying within the episode that "The Doctor also mentions that he loves "a little shop", a sentiment previously expressed in the episodes "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones"." They are writing the episode. It is the editors adding the continuity section points saying it. It is the aforementioned editors who are pointing these things out. The very pointing out of this information is synthesis, U-Mos. And I will reiterate that consensus does not override policy. Ever. If you wish to have that policy change, the place to do that is thattaway. This isn't the place.

Now, if you cite the information, then the only problem remaining is the consideration of trivia. Without citation, the statements are synthesis, and cannot remain. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're warping policy into something unrecognizable. River uses a gun that works in the same manner as Captain Jack's. The Doctor calls it the same thing that Captain Jacks gun was called. The show is crystal clear on establishing this connection. Pointing to the connection made within the show itself is not synthesis.

Barring you acquiring some opinions supporting your position, or taking this subject up with a third party, I think we are done here.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As I see this, pointing out a previous appearance of a phrase, joke, line or technology, is fine - but claiming a direct link and an intentional back-reference by the writer isn't. Mentioning that such guns previously appeared in an episode by the same writer is shaky ground, as it implies that Moffat was linking, so to speak. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly appreciate you backing off of the dismissiveness. I will say it for a third time: consensus does not override policy, Period. If you want to change policy, you need to go elsewhere to change it; this article is not the place to attempt such. My considerations concerning this matter are supposrted by policy (and not a warping of such, as was rather uncivilly suggested). Let's take your very words Saturn:

• "River uses a gun that works in the same manner as Captain Jack's."

Says who? Do you have a citation that stipulates such? No, one has not been added. Therefore , you (and the contributor who added it initially) are presenting the comparison through the lens of your own observations. The episode did not even mention Captain Jack or where the gun's naming came into existence. It is synthesis to filter that info through prior episodes. You are not citable, and neither is your observation comparing other episodes. This article is about a single episode of the Doctor Who series, and not an overview of continuity issues.
While I am sorry if you don't want to talk about the dismantling of the fancrufty continuity stuff, but every article within Wikipedia needs to follow the same rules and policies; that's wwhat makes it an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion of what to write: The gun used by River to blast open the wall produces a similar effect to that used by Captain Jack in "The Doctor Dances". The Doctor's comments about a "little shop" echo similar sentiments about such a venue in the hospitals of "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones". How's that? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually, one of the indicators that something is being synthesized is the use of the word 'similar'. In point of fact, who is noting a similarity? The editor. Before someone says 'the writers put that into the episode', allow me to point out that they did not say something along the lines of 'remember how I told you I liked a little shop?' or 'Rose called that a squareness gun' or even 'Rose called a gun like that, last used by Captain Jack Harkness, a squareness gun'. Had they said anything like that, it might be includable (note i am not discussing the further issues of notability and fancruft). Since they did not, we are not allowed to synthesize the prior instances.

Now, a better way to handle this is to note the bit about the squareness gun in an article about such, or in some article about Doctor Who tech (similar in nature to the 'Aliens in Doctor Who' article). The bit about liking a little shop is best served as a part of the Doctor's personal article. Of course, it goes without saying that citations are necessary for this.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that you get defensive about my "dismissivness" as I only chose my words as an echo of your own insistence that your interpretation is correct. You are not the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable in Wikipedia and you are in the minority here. Therefore we ARE done until you bring in a some support for your position. Or do you really think that this conversation is going anywhere? Are you on the verge of agreement with the arguments advanced? Because I'm not swayed in the slightest by yours. As far as I can see it, you're simply wrong and you're over interpreting policy to the point of absurdity. And by the way, taking my "very words" as they were used in the Talk Page and arguing that those words cannot be used in the article itself is pointless. I did not use those "very words" in the article, therefore I am not required to substantiate them in any form. My only inclusion in the article itself, is the point that the term "squareness gun" was used by Rose in regards to Jack's blaster. It was. The term has come up twice (in reference to a device shown to have the same function) in the series and it is not synthesis to point to this.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It clearly is similar; it's common sense. Software testing for image correlation would confirm this. Honest! A square-shaped tunnel of light opening up a wall. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But why not? I enjoy a pointless debate as much as the next guy. If another time machine appears in the series, and the main character refers to it as a Tardis, it's a Tardis. And it would not be synthesis to point to a previous instance of a Tardis appearing in the show. not in the slightest.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing, Arcayne: can you PLEASE stop saying consensus does not override policy. You've linked to the policy, we've all read it, and it clearly is not violated by these points. So we ARE looking for a consensus. End of. I agree completely with the policy, but THESE POINTS DO NOT APPLY TO IT. Also, enough of making out I'm taking an "anything goes" attitude towards continuity sections. I'm often the first to remove some of the rubbish that's added to these sections, but sometimes dictionary definitions of what comes from who is just too much. Strip it down to the basics: a line/prop is included in an episode for the specific purpose of reminding the audience of previous events in the programme. Continuity sections are commonplace in episode articles, not to mention one of the most useful things such articles can provide to a general reader. Two and two makes four. U-Mos (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Before I address the different posts, I am going to remind everyone to take a deep breath and calm the heck down. Attacking me isn't going to get me to consider your explanations any better, and will likely only end up in one or more folk getting warned/blocked/punked. We have two different points of view. This fits the specific criteria for an RfC. Please feel free to file one.

Now, the different posts:

Saturn - I would point out that while I am not "God's Lone Voice in Wikipedia"™, I am correctly interpreting our synthesis policy here. If you feel that the policy is being too narrowly construed here, you have the freedom to bring the matter up in the article discussion page for that policy, or advocate a change in the synthesis policy at the Village Pump or the NOR noticeboard. Your "very words" from this discussion were used to illustrate the point because you were interpreting the synthesized statements in precisely the same way that readers would interpret them. We don't chew the readers' food for them, avoiding synthesis prevents that from occurring. Even your noting of the squareness gun having occurred before is your filtering of that information. I am not really sure how to impress upon you that you (or anyone else) noting the prior instance of an occurrence is being recognized by you, the editor. Uncited, it is synthesis, in that you are interpreting the re-occurrence. Provide a source that specifically notes it (maybe it is mentioned in Doctor Who Confidential, or some such); otherwise it is synthesized information and cannot be included. Lastly, you are going to find me a far more agreeable participant in discussion if you ease up on the incivility. Characterizing the discussion as "pointless" and taking a confrontational tone in your edits is not going to serve you well. We disagree as to an interpretation. It isn't as if I called you a feltch monkey, or kicked your dog. Try to remember to not take discussions personally; if you can't, perhaps take a short break. Arguing angrily will only complicate matters (for you).

Treasury Tag - I am not arguing that the two items are probably' the same item. I am pointing out that we need a citation that someone notable has said the same thing. Comparing the two is you saying it, and you (as an editor) aren't citable; when we add comparisons or note similarities, its called synthesis.

U-MOS - my apologies if I have made you feel that I am not rendering good faith towards you. I keep pointing out how policy trumps consensus because I am left with the impression that folk feel that the inclusion of this continuity stuff is exempt from our policies, when it is not. I keep noting the policy because I cannot see how someone could read the specifics as well as the implication of our synthesis policy and still argue effectively for the inclusion of what I see as crufty, trivia-laden interpretations. And please, make no mistake: pointing to a prior episode wherein something similar happened is synthesis. Continuity sections are magnets for the sort of rubbish you mentioned, and I would point out that it is not our job to point out connections to prior episodes, unless it is specifically stated within the article, or cited by a credible source. I will repeat that: we cannot create these connections ourselves, as it involves us taking the points of one episode and using them to make a point about another episode. That is synthesis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's just your opinion that you are correctly interpreting policy. If you want people to be more agreeable, you could start off by not constantly expressing your opinion as if it were irrefutable fact, and then reacting in a defensive manner to a dismissive argument. The entire approach of you stating that your interpretation of policy is fact is dismissive of those who disagree with your stance. This is not me reacting in "arguing angrily". No. I'm simply responding to you with the same type of language you address me (and others). You should take the time to consider how your own choice of tone reflects upon you, if you respond poorly when they are used to address you. Regardless: Seek out others to support your argument. Until you do this, the conversation is pointless, as neither side shows any inclination in concession and your voice is in the minority.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure how your tone reflects mine, or how my tone is anywhere near as angry as yours is, but okay. I am not going to argue your logic of reprisal ('if Bobby jumps off the cliff, so will I', etc) My reading of synthesis is not my "opinion", it is the way it is written. You want to be upset, take it out on the policy, not me, As policy, it has the consensus of the Project at large and as such, surpasses the consensus presented here. The fact that it is policy supports my argument. You want to change it, go to the right place to do so and start typing. Until then, your consensus does not outweigh policy. As k any admin; they will be happy to confirm that for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If the reflection of tone is unclear, you might wish to seek a third party outside of Wikipedia to read your own words back to you. You might be surprised at how you come off. As for the poor analogy, I treat others as they treat me. Regardless, we're simply back to you contending that your interpretation of policy is definitive, when it seems that you are, to this point, alone in your interpretation. You are in the minority here, therefore the burden of proof is upon you. Pointing to a rule easily interpreted in myriad ways as a form of proof is, unsurprisingly, not an actual form of proof. If you are right, you should have no problem finding many administrators willing to support your perception of the policy.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Arcayne here. The section in WP:NOR on synthesis is designed to stop people drawing their own connections to advance a position. There is no position being advanced here. It states facts (which are verifiable to anyone with access to the episodes and functioning brain) without even implying a conclusion, let alone stating one. Even if you think that the NOR policy page technically might not allow this, it's in the letter rather than the spirit of the policy - NOR was definitely not designed with this kind of issue in mind. Yes, pointing out connections with earlier episodes requires some original thought. But there's no motive behind drawing these connections other than that some readers might find them interesting/informative. There's no conclusion being drawn from them. As such, I think they're fine. Trebor (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Once more: we are not making any interpretations, we are merely stating fact: that these things have been seen before in the programme. This is the whole purpose of a continuity point. As long as no conclusions are drawn (eg. "This could mean that River Song is a Time Agent like Jack" at its most extreme), I cannot see how the policy prevents this sort of thing from being noted. And I belive we're really going to have to agree to disagree here. U-Mos (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As advised by the good folk in AN/I, I will file the RfC. However, I do see how you are interpreting the policy. I disagree with your interpretation of it, and see it a slippery slope within its reasoning, and am thinking the matter isn't quite resolved here yet. So long as everyone keeps their cool and doesn't get snippy, the matter will get resolved forthwith. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone has filed a request. However, I find myself in agreement with the supports for inclusion here. Continuity sections are common in all Episodic content articles, and if you wish to remove them then a single article's page is not the place to do it - a wider reaching group page would be more advisable. In addition, as you stated eariler continuity sections are at high risk of being vandalised with Unsourced OR. With that, I don't disagree, however to state we shouldn't have them because of that is illogical - the same logic could be used to stop any future episode articles from being created, or even to delete a controversial figures article (Bill Gates springs to mind, as he is vandalised regularly). anyway, I am glad to see that someone has filed a request. 84.71.123.26 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

River Song

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 read in the article about Prof River Song that she "appeares to be bisexual". Is that implied in the episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Najhoant (talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

She makes a comment about doing an android at some point, but other than that it's speculation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a point where she claims to fancy everybody in the room except that guy from League of Gentlemen. Given that there were women in the room at the time, I guess this can be taken to mean she's bisexual. I don't think it should be added, however, as it it still kind of speculative. Besides, if we listed all of the bisexual characters in the Whoniverse, we would probably crash Wikipedia. Ray and jub (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she doesn't say that she fancies everyone in the room. She just says that she doesn't fancy him, which is a little different than saying that she fancies everyone else. DonQuixote (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But since we can't add anything about her supposed bisexuality to the article without dripping into the eternal champagne-flute of original research, let's stop this here :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:41, 4 June 2008 (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.

RfC relating to the "continuity paragraphs" section above

• I'm not going to give my comments on the material here; I gave them in the perfectly reasonable and comprehensive discussion above. This RfC is in my opinion un-necessary and simply inflames the situation. Two sentences in an article, where everybody bar one editor agrees with their inclusion, do not merit an RfC. The initiator's claims of passive-aggressive behaviour on the talkpage is absurd, and I would suggest that this is closed as speedily as possible. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I mirror exactly what Treasury Tag said above. U-Mos (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Dude, why are you so nervous about folk rendering a comment? RfC's (requests for comment) are not the same thing as those addressing personality issues. Perhaps you were mistaken, though I did try to correct that misnomer on your usertalk page. Since are seemingly confident in your position, sit back and allow the comments to roll in. After all, you fellows are the ones that met my suggestion of filing an RfC with the counter that I should do it. I have done so. Were you expecting me not to? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the fololowing comment left by an administrator (Trebor) sums up the problem with Arcayne's interpretation of synthesis quite well: "The section in WP:NOR on synthesis is designed to stop people drawing their own connections to advance a position. There is no position being advanced here. It states facts (which are verifiable to anyone with access to the episodes and functioning brain) without even implying a conclusion, let alone stating one. Even if you think that the NOR policy page technically might not allow this, it's in the letter rather than the spirit of the policy - NOR was definitely not designed with this kind of issue in mind. Yes, pointing out connections with earlier episodes requires some original thought. But there's no motive behind drawing these connections other than that some readers might find them interesting/informative. There's no conclusion being drawn from them."Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd like to point out that Moffat mentioned that the guns were intended to be the same in yesterday's Confidential. So this argument discussion is now only relevant to the "little shop" point. U-Mos (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, little shops are mentioned too, by Russell T Davies. "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones" are both spoken about. Also, Moffat suggests the Doctor likes little shops because they're always near the exit, if you'd want to include that. If you want to check, iPlayer, starts about 18:34, ends about 19:40. --89.242.253.154 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Fantastic, I think we can call this case closed then. U-Mos (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the matter of synthesis was closed once Pawnkingthree (talk · contribs) supplied references for the statements, only leaving the questions of relative notability remaining. Of course, I will view the Doctor Who Confidential broadcast to verify that it in fact addresses the points made in the section). That was what was required, and what was asked for. In order to avoid others from questioning these continuity sections as I have here, it might be beneficial for some of the Who fans here to go back and check to make sure that the continuity sections there are also referenced. I am fairly certain that All the Crazy™ experienced here doesn't need to repeat itself in a bunch of other pages.

That aside, what speciically is the notability of the squareness gun mentioning? Is it somehow vital to the article? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, you seemed to believe you were contradicting me by re-stating almost exactly what I had just said. Congratulations. I am sure this crazyness does not need to be repeated, but I'm also sure that it will be down to you whether it is. As for your last point, I have no idea what you mean. U-Mos (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a bit more good faith wouldn't snap your arms off at the shoulder, would it? I was pointing to the fact that a lot of the fuss was that folk here didn't feel that any citation was necessary because all the continuity cruft was "obvious" and whatnot. The synthesis issues were raised precisely because there were not citations marking it as someone else's interpretations, and not some fan/editor.

My last point asked whether it was vital to mention the squareness gun's previous usage. Is it vital to the episode? Can the episode exist without it being mentioned? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor Who Confidential episode for "Forest of the Dead" has none other than Davies and Moffat finding it significant enough to talk at length about the facts that it is the same squareness gun, and that it is the payoff to the Doctor's fondness for "little shops". It's very regular for continuity section things to be included because of a source in Confidential. Give it up, Arcayne. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-RfC issue

As well, might I trouble anyone to point out where I mentioned - ever - in this article discussion the term "passive aggressive"? Coz, looking at the history, I don't see it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned it on my talkpage, as you are well aware. You also referred to unpleasantness in the discussion on ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what I say on your talk page about another user has precisely nothing to do with either this discussion or this RfC. My feelings about another user, expressed in another venue, are not germane, whatsoever to this article discussion. My comment referred to unpleasantness. Did you happen to note who I said was being unpleasant? Quite obviously no, as I did not specify; I left it to the visiting editors to determine that. You might wish to consult with an admin about that etiquette issue, if you are somehow unclear. Now, might I additionally trouble you to perhaps stop attacking the editor and focus on the edits, please? I get that you feel I am attacking your baby (ie, the article), but I am not. I am trying to make that "baby" fit within the structure that every other article in Wikipedia has to follow. Period. Fancruft, trivia and synthesized info is not a legitimate part of the article. Be polite, or begone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You said on ANI and on my talkpage that there was unpleasant and passive-aggressive behaviour on this talkpage. There isn't. That is relevant to your points, as I'm sure others will agree. How am I attacking the editor? What editor? What attack? Nobody except you has a problem with the passages in question, so YOU ARE WRONG in this case. Period. "Be polite or begone" is advice that would benefit you more than me! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you quite done? Did you miss that whole 'comment on the edits and not the editor' bit from WP:TALK? I am not going to clutter up this page with your apparent anger at my assessment of another person's behavior rendered on a third person's usertalk page. I am sorry that you feel my (correct) interpretation of policy apparently jeopardizes the article (btw, it doesn't). If you cannot keep a cool head, you might need to take a break for a bit. If you can somehow point to how any of your assertions affect the article, I will listen. If not, I think you are going to have to stop, please. And you do not need to post empty threats on my usertalk page anymore. If you want to file, file away. The RfC is to allow comment on what I feel is a breach in policy. Nothing else. Your personality difficulties are not a part of that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're on ANI, Arcayne. Since you've decided that policy allows you to ban me from your talkpage, I'll tell you here. Comments such as: "my (correct) interpretation of policy apparently jeopardizes the article (btw, it doesn't)" are unconstructive and incivil - if you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, then perhaps Earth isn't the right place for you. Separating this section from the main RfC is inappropriate as I'm sure you know. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've misinterpreted policy and guidelines yet again. Yes, you've reported me to AN/I. You are welcome to do so. However, might I ask what referencing your personal issues with me has to do with the article? I asked you to not post to my page after you asked me not to post to yours. That does not mean, my friend, that you carry on the discussion in the article. If you want to continue discussing your personality issues with me, find an admi to act as go-between or seek mediation. This isn't the venue for it, and I am fairly sure that the rest of the folk here will agree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

All I will say on this matter is that comments such as "I am fairly sure that the rest of the folk here will agree" are exactly what sent this discussion down the more personal road in the first place. I think we've all said what we have to say on the subject, so the only thing that can be done is to see what comes from the RfC and comply with it. U-Mos (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather my point, U-Mos. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

why has it come to this? arcayne i'm sorry but U-mos and treasury tag are right you are taking the policy too literatly, you are ruining its spirit.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Lerd, I am not ruining anything. This is a discussion about policy interpretation. We are seeking outside eyes (someone with no investment - like myself - in the actual article). From your earlier post on the subject, I already understand your interpretation of the discussion as deleterious to the article. I disagree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

River Song and The Doctor

River Song is a new character, but an unusual one in that she is apparently familiar with Doctor Who and seems to know quite a lot about him.

In one addition that was removed from the article, I remarked that her reaction to Doctor Who's mention of Emergency Programme One demonstrates her familiarity with the TARDIS. I later went back and examined the scene, which is a minute or two before the cliffhanger ending and leads up to it. Doctor Who says something like "If she's alone in the TARDIS for more than five hours, Emergency Programme One will be triggered", and River Song completes his sentence for him, something like "yes, sending her home."

I think this was a valid addition to the continuity aspects of the article. For instance, in the current version (22:11 UTC, 5 June 2008) we have:

The Doctor mentions that "emergency program one" will send Donna home should she be left in alone the TARDIS for five hours. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home.

As I implied above, this is inaccurate. The following would be more accurate:

The Doctor mentions that "emergency program one" will activate should she be left in alone the TARDIS for five hours. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home. River Song reveals an apparent familiarity with the programme, by saying that this programme will send Donna home.

Furthermore I think it might be appropriate to produce a few paragraphs about the way in which writer Steven Moffat demonstrates River Song's apparent familiarity with The Doctor. These include her possession of a sonic screwdriver that he recognises as exactly like his own, which she claims he gave her.

Now at this stage we can't rule out subterfuge or byzantine plot twists (hence my use of the qualifier "apparent" above), but I think there is a lot we can say here which is reasonable analysis rather than synthesis. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your name is a mouthful. Ok, that's out of the way. It seems like sort of a tangent in continuity, as it's not really continuity yet. More like an answer without the question. Not quite sure where to work it in, though I agree that River's familiarity bears mention. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This cannot be in the continuity section, as it simply isn't continuity. The only place it could go in this article is the synopsis, but it may be difficult to know where. My advice would be to wait, becaue River Song will probable become notable enough for her own article in the future. U-Mos (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see the comment "it's not really continuity yet". Someone previously unknown demonstrates apparent knowledge of specific features of the TARDIS featured in previous episodes, and uses a weapon or device whose effects are recognised by the Doctor as resembling one that appeared in a previous episode. That's obviously continuity between this episode and previous ones, irrespective of the actual explanation for those events (River Song could be faking it, but that doesn't negate the continuity between this episode and those). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be continuity, it would have to relate to another episode of Doctor Who. While program one itself does, River Song's knowledge of the TARDIS deos not. If, for instance, in a future episode program one is used on her, the point could be mentioned in this article. But her knowledge is part of the mystery of her character, and is not relevant to any other episode. I have added a sentence where RS is first mentioned in the synopsis, and this should suffice here. U-Mos (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's continuity, and it does relate to other episodes (as I've shown): she uses a device that the Doctor recognises and that we have seen in another episode (crucially, one written by the same author), and she's aware of the function of a TARDIS program we've seen in another episode. Another potential item of continuity (though a tenuous one and probably not worthy of mention) is that her purported "Life of a time traveller" manuscript (she calls it by that title) has a cover patterned after the paneling of the police box-shaped TARDIS. These are items that connect this person in some way to events from past episodes and to the general continuity of the program (the Doctor is seldom far from his TARDIS which has held its shape, with perhaps a few exceptions, since November, 1963.) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the squareness gun is already mentioned. Secondly, although her knowledge is notable (as I said, it's now in the synopsis), it is not continuity. River having knowledge of the TARDIS is not relevant to any other episode, or the show as a whole. It is relevant to her and this episode only. Just because she displays knowledge of an aspect specifically mentioned before in the series does not make it relevant to this other mention, although of course the program warrants a continuity point on its own. But the essence of the point is not that she knows emergency program one, but that she knows about the TARDIS. This is not (yet?) relevant to the continuity of Doctor Who. As I said earlier, if in the future of the show she is subjected to emergency program one it will become notable in that sense. U-Mos (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree. While we agree that it's important, there's no argument about that, it's not continuity in the sense that it relates to previous episodes. It's just plot points to be resolved next time. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear disagreement by numerous editors with my concept of continuity so I'll defer to the majority. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be a dumb question, but how precisely is the mention of the squareness gun vital to the article? While I can almost get on board with the mention of the Tardis program, I am puzzled as to why the gun bears mentioning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... because it's an item seen in a previous episode? Ergo CONTINUITY? U-Mos (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't sarcasm I detected, was it? 'Coz my point was to ask how the mentioning of a squareness gun being used before in another episode is vital to the understanding of this episode. Might you answer that, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Arcayne. Here we go: in the Doctor Who Confidential following the broadcast of River's Run [I refuse to give it its changed title it being rubbish!], Steven Moffat, the writer, implied that the gun was the same one used by Jack Harkness, and that River picked it up during her time in the TARDIS, where Jack left it. I've not yet looked to see whether this is properly sourced in the article; it certainly is in the River's Run article. If not, I'll deal with it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Thanks, TT. I understand why it was mentioned in continuity. I am curious as to why it is vital to the understanding of this episode. I.e., would the article suffer from the squareness gun not being mentioned? Would the reader be totally derailed by us simply noting that they escaped the shadows? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article would not suffer, but the continuity section would be missing a point. U-Mos (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The article on vacuum cleaners, for example, wouldn't suffer if the fact that its 1905 inventor, Walter Griffiths, lived in Birmingham, were omitted. But it's nonetheless interesting, relevant and has some possible value to some readers, and that's what an encyclopedia is for, after all. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)With respect, if it isn't vital to the article, then the section wouldn't be losing a point - the article would be trimming off the unnecessary fat (and, as some would term it, cruft), leaving a leaner and better article. Actually, noting where an inventor comes from isn't a very good example, as noting where someone is from isn't necessarily cruft, whilst noting that he liked jelly doughnuts might be; it isn't vital to understanding the article, the inventor or the process of invention (which bears mentioning that Griffiths isn't actually the inventor of the hoover, according to the article, but instead one of many). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Shorter=better? I don't believe so. U-Mos (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. I said leaner, not shorter. There is a notable difference. We can trim away everything that isn't a vital part of the article subject. That done, the only text left remaining is that vital to the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As well, could I trouble you to properly indent your replies? Conversation flows a lot better when indenting shows the progression of conversation. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The squareness gun absolutely isn't vital to the program. It's just one means by which the writer shows the continuity between the new character, River Song, and the Doctor's past. Another method is by her possession of a sonic screwdriver that has been modified to preserve her personality after her death. Another method is by her knowledge of his name. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, there are a number of problems with that explanation, ANLA Ant. The first part is that if it were indeed a method by which the writer was pointing to knowledge that Song had of the Doctor, it has already been addressed in the Plot Summary section. Redundancy isn't required. Also, if all the points in continuity are supposed to point to such, then the section should be re-titled foreshadowing or some such thing, as the writer was pointing to all of these things to illustrate how Song knows the Doctor as he will be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you can call me Ant, Antsy or Tony, Second, I think we already had this discussion and clearly my concept of continuity (to my considerable surprise) did not prevail. I demur from further debate on this occasion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Ant - no offense was intended as it was just the acronym of your new name (which is indeed quite a bit to say). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the view that everything that isn't necessary to the article should be removed. There is always room for a point of interest, as long as it's done in the right way. U-Mos (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we tend to call that trivia and (as an encyclopedia) we tend to discourage the addition of 'interesting tidbits'. There is also the problem that occurs when trying to answer who the points of interest would be interesting to. Probably not the regular reader, or the Doctor Who uninitiated. When I ran the bits past an admin (who knew little about Doctor Who), he couldn't understand what the bits meant; therefore, not very useful to the article.

The right way to include such is to integrate it into a production section, specifically discussing the method by which the writers/directors/whatever chose to integrate pieces from prior episodes. Clearly, it didn't happen by mistake, and there must be a series "Bible" that the production refer to (and kudos to anyone who gets their hands upon that). Doing it that way removes the in-universe writing style that tends to permeate these sorts of articles.

Long or short, the problems remain the same. At their basis, many of the comments are cruft, and not integral to the article. There is also the problem of notability and synthesis (the latter of which has been resolved mostly through the usage of citation). As such, unless they can be integrated into a real-world description of the process, they don't belong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While Arcayne and I may have a difference of opinions in regards to synthesis, we do seem to agree on the issue of trivia. The continuity sections of Doctor Who episodes do seem to be overflowing with what could be considered Trivia. I don't have much to add that Arcayne hasn't already stated, and my work schedule has gotten a bit away from me the last couple of weeks. In short, I lend my voice to support Arcayne's perspective on the issue of Trivia.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not really much I can say here. You have your views on this, and I completely disagree. What I would say is that this style of continuity section is present across the entire set of Doctor Who episode/serial articles, so you would be better off raising your issue in the Doctor Who WikiProject. U-Mos (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Okay, I respect that you have a right to disagree. Perhaps you could tell me why you specifically disagree, so that we can iron out our differences. As for raising the issue in the Dr. Who Wikiproject, I have done so here. With respect, the beauty of a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that formats frequently change. As this is an encyclopedia, there is the added consideration that articles don't get to be different from ones from other programs or genres simply because there are many of them. Trivia is trivia, and perhaps can be best served by being integrated them into other sections/new sections, as I suggested above. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would ask here first, rather than presume to edit. But amongst the things that tie this episode to the 5th series is when Professor Song is talking to Anita about "her Doctor", she says, "The Doctor in the TARDIS. Next stop, everywhere". The latter said by the 11th Doctor to Amy Pond, but more importantly, the former used by Prisoner Zero and Angel Bob. Interestingly, the Doctor appears at that moment, saying "Spoilers". Anyway, should "The Doctor in the TARDIS" be mentioned? LMB02 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratings irony

I feel something along these lines should be mentioned, but I can't figure out how it can be done without going into OR and triviality. Basically, there is an irony that RTD pushed for the latter episodes of the series to be broadcast at 7 rather than around 6:20, as he thought it would lose the show 1.5 million viewers. This led to this episode, as opposed to I'd Do Anything, competing with Britain's Got Talent on the first broadcast. This means that the episode almost certainly lost viewers by being broadcast at a later time. Is there any way this can be included in the article? U-Mos (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Finding a citation that makes the same observation might help immensely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm I detect? Well there's citation for RTD wanting the show to be on later and the later episodes being put on later, and there's citation for the low ratings due to BGT. I was thinking along the lines of "ironically, this episode was only competing with BGT due to RTD's belief that an earlier broadcast time would lose the show 1.5 million views [citation]" at the end of the first "broadcast and reception" paragraph. But I understand it's treading the very fine line we like to call "OR" (don't worry, I won't use the "s" word). U-Mos (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that could be added without it being OR, but I can't find a source that RTD wanted it to be broadcast later to not lose viewers to "I'd do anything". If such source is presented, I'd say a paragraph along the lines of "Showrunner RTD pushed the show from it's usual timeslot to the later 7pm time slot, because he feared losing viewers to the show I'd do anything. In it's later time slot competed with the series finale of Britain's got talent and the show did not win its time slot for the first time since it's renewal in 2005." would be perfectly fine, as it only states what can be sourced and does not draw any conclusions. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's ironic, but irony is essentially an opinion, so we'd need a source that holds the opinion, I fear... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

@SoWhy: The citation I meant was the one used in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), which doesn't mention I'd Do Anything, but it doesn't have to for the point to stand. Maybe just changing the first sentence to say "Due to RTD's belief that a broadcast earlier than 7 o' clock could lose DW 1.5 million viewers [citation], "Silence in the Library" was first broadcast at the same time as..." BUT upon closer inspection of this citation, we have this quote from RTD: "it will shift later on in the run, around episode five or six, which the BBC was going to do anyway." That makes this point void. Oh well. U-Mos (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your earlier question, no, it wasn't sarcasm. It was a request for citation that you detected. When offering views on what people were thinking, we need citations that note the specifics, as combining two different idears would bring the s-word into play. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's about as ironic that the first ever RTD-era episode to not be at the top in the ratings was by super-duper-praised writer Steven Moffat, especially since he's about to take over (and was praised heavily by Davies in the eighth and ninth episodes of this year's Doctor Who COnfidential). It's about as ironic that this ratings dip was for new episode number 50, a milestone. It's ironic that, after taking a week out to accommodate Eurovision, people can hardly remember to tune in to the show, when Partners in Crime did so well (as I think was originally pointed out, despite its time slot). Et cetera. There are oh so many observations like this that just don't belong in Wikipedia, as long as its NOR principle is as non-negotiable as NPOV. Apart from anything else, trying to include these things requires us either to be selective in a judgemental manner or else have a long list of them. I suppose that's why criticism, trivia etc. sections are so discouraged by the rules. (Mind you, if I'm honest, I have the same soft spot as U-Mos for these hilarious truths, which belong in Doctor Who wikis as an absolute minimum.) 129.67.53.232 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Still semi-protected?

Seeing as this episode aired nearly two weeks ago, can we really justify protecting the page because we're frightened silly people will still find it funny to add stupid things, so as to play pranks on people who would have had to not seen any Doctor Who in quite a while to fall for it? In my opinion, no. (I apologise if I sounded a little harsh. I'm just trying to encapsulate the reason people want such protection.) I therefore request that the page be unprotected. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually hasn't been protected for a while. According to the log, it expired automatically at 19:08, 2 June 2008. I noticed a while ago and was going to remove the padlock thing (I presume that's what made you think it was protected), but got a bout of the lazy, so didn't. --86.164.13.181 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

It just aired here, in the United States of America, on June 20. Damned neat episode. Lots42 (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity section: primary source

"Doctor Who website" = primary source. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The episodes are a primary source. Background material about the writing and production is secondary, I believe. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It is directly affiliated with the subject. Would be like using a Coca-Cola website to write about the production of Coca-Cola. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I was under the impression that secondary sources are "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event" – like a discussion of the writing/production of a TV series, say. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys... Primare source != necessarily bad. We are dealing with fiction here; it is very hard to come by secondary sources, so primary sources (being the episodes) are allowed. As far as the BBC website goes; yes, they are related, but the webteam building the site is independent from the programme's producers, so it can be used as a reliable secondary source. — Edokter • Talk • 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I just do not see this stuff as having gotten significant discussion in secondary sources not affiliated with the article's subject. It is not notable or noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Edokter and I can see it... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Plankton

I cannot see how this fact possibly violates NOR. It uses primary sources to make a wholly descriptive claim - that these two texts by Steven Moffat both contain an identical joke. It does not claim that the latter use is an explicit reference or in-joke, or give any attempt at a (synthesized) explanation - it merely notes that the same joke is used in both sources. Were the sources by different authors it could perhaps be called OR on the grounds that it implies causality, but this is two things by the same writer. Were the article claiming anything other than that the line appears in both episodes, it might be OR. But as it stands, the claim is the very definition of "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The claim is merely "A joke about being pleased at being told you have the IQ of plankton appears in both sources." That is, in fact, straightforward and descriptive. 96.39.62.90 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It easily could be happenstance. Without any statement from Moffat, or a comparison made by a reliable source that notes this, it's simply extraneous. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It could be happenstance that Steven Moffat twice came up with a joke that no other writer I am aware of has ever used? That's a stretch, to say the least. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean, it seems like the relevant facts are these. 1) An IQ of plankton joke appears in Press Gang. 2) An IQ of plankton joke appears in Silence in the Library, written by the same writer as Press Gang. 3) There is no #3. 1 and 2 are sufficiently interesting to constitute a fact about the production of Silence in the Library, namely that it contains an element previously used by the same writer. It's as straightforward as saying "this is a list of stories in which Daleks appear" - an eminently verifiable, clear-cut description of a common element in multiple works. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not clearcut. We have no assurance it was intentional; maybe he wrote it, forgetting he did it before, and happened to write it the same. Jokes relating IQ and plankton is certain is not new at all.

What you're trying to suggest is exactly how trivial cultural references get started on WP. People make casual links between two different works, and assume they must be connected. Some may be, most aren't. This is why when we add anything that is not immediately obvious within the work of fiction, it must be sourced. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really, step 3 is "you say they are related", what you are doing appears to be a variation of WP:SYNTH. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The language I've inserted makes no claims about intent. It doesn't seem to me that intent matters. Whether he recycled the joke deliberately (making it a reference) or accidentally (making it an interesting example of the writer's general style) is immaterial - the mere fact of the parallel is itself an interesting fact that sheds light on the nature of Steven Moffat's writing. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"the mere fact of the parallel is itself an interesting fact" is exactly how we get popular culture references. It is an interesting fact, and I would be curious to know if that was delibrate; if it is and that can be sourced, great we can add it. But until then, it's an interesting observation and nothing more. If a reliable source made the observation that they are similar, then we can also include that observation. But otherwise it is original research. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuity additions

@Mezigue: I noticed that you deleted some of the continuity section previously added, and thought that some of it is worth adding back. I agree that it's off topic to deeply talk about all the events mentioned, but given that they are direct references and later form important plot points, I think it's worth mentioning them. Before you delete what I've added, can we talk about exactly what is relevant and come to some consensus? Smith(talk) 23:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While we have our WP:SPOILER guideline (that is, we don't care about spoilers), continuity sections should not be forward-looking, unless the episode of discussion is significant towards a future episode, for example, the future episode explaining what had happened to a character that had disappeared for some of the episode. (An example of this would be from Babylon 5, that it is important to point out that many things brought up in the first season episode "Babylon Squared" are then subsequently built up and explained in detail in the 3rd season "War Without End (Babylon 5)" due to the nature of the time travel story). In the case of the stuff with River Song and how "The Many Husbands of RS" worked out, I don't believe these are needed here. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the point of these sections is to decode things in the episode under discussion that are not immediately understandable without reference to other work. There is none of that, as all the stuff River Song mentions was simply made up on the hoof and the character was not even meant to return. There is no need to endlessly cross-reference stories otherwise.

I think that's a little arbitrary. I remember when I first watched this episode, I'd not seem the first season and thus never seen the "squareness gun" before yet I was significantly more confused about River's history than the gun. Knowledge of where the gun comes from is not needed to understand the episode, yet I wouldn't argue that it should be removed. I understand that it's not necessary to link all the events she mentions, but I think the gifting of the diary, for example, is, given how many times we see it and that it's impending filling is a plot point later on. Smith(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mezigue:@Masem: Do we have any clear guidelines for what should be in a continuity section? WP:TVPLOT has nothing. I really do believe that some mention of this episode's place in the continuity has to be made, given how much the events talked about are referred to. Smith(talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

First and foremost, anything in continuity needs to be from a third-party source (the BBC counts here) so that we aren't engaging in OR in what is continuity or not. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)