Talk:The Night of the Doctor

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

Some thoughts…[edit]

Although it says “broadcast”, the article might be better if it said “the epsiode was made available…”, as it was released on line through the BBC web-site, then placed on iPlayer. As the process of his metamorphosis from the McGann character to the Hurt version is obviously going to be a major plot-point (in as much as it alters the currently known continuity), and possibly is also involved in the question of how many regenerations are available to him, stating that this is in any way a “regeneration” as we have previously seen it in the series could be original research. Likewise the statement that he is “soon to regenerate from his injuries” is also original research - the Sisterhood actually say he was dead, and they have brought him back: we do not know that he would have regenerated at all, let alone that it would have been in minutes or even hours or days. Also we only find we are crashing into Karn, after the ship crashes, so would convention not have it that the synopsis would say, “…who is crashing into an un-named planet.”, then “After being revived by The Sisterhood, The Doctor discovers he is on Karn (previously the location of the story ‘The Brain of Morbius’)…” etc.? The claim that the epsiode came as a surprise to viewers is also untrue - the name, duration, and release date for this mini-episode, and a second to come, have been known for some time. The BBFC certification for the special episodes were posted to their site, and the BBC said that the first would be released today in the last few days (if not longer). The appearance by Paul McGann was kept secret in so far as the cast was not given by the BBFC or BBC, but the statement which Paul McGann had made was that although gutted not to be in the special itself, he saw opportunities for older Doctors to come back at “other times”, which is not a denial, and may even have been a hint that the mini episode was already done. Colin Baker’s statement is largely irrelevant here, as he neither mentioned the mini episodes, nor does not appearing in the Special preclude appearances in other places, such as the mini episodes. 86.132.54.238 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, and I agree with all of them, though I do think it's important to stress that McGann's appearance was indeed a surprise. Also original research is the statement that the Doctor's mention of his Big Finish companions "officiates them into the official canon of Doctor Who". Firstly, famously, Doctor Who //has// no "official canon", though the //television// canon is indeed about as close as it gets to one; but secondly, the author of that statement is assuming that the characters as mentioned here are the same as the characters who appear in Big Finish. On a metatextual level, they're clearly intended as an allusion for those viewers who will get it; but within the text itself, there's no indication that these are the same characters, having lived the same adventures, and no reason to assume so. The paragraph that precedes it does a nice job of indicating how rare it is for spinoff characters to get namechecked in the TV programme, and that indication is really all that's needed; a final sentence that basically amounts to, "So these guys are now totally real within the context of the show!" is unwarranted, and I'm going to remove it. Also, that's not even what "officiate" means. Binabik80 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative continuity items[edit]

I've removed some. Without referencing to reliable sources, we cannot have them. I've also purged the Youtube external link; we don't use those at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELYES says that "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply." The YouTube link is on the BBC's official site, so it's legally distributed, and none of the restrictions or "links to be avoided" apply. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, if the BBC wasn't hosting the series. We can link to the BBC, not YouTube. There is puh-lenty of background regarding the reasons and occasions we avoid using YouTube as a reference for anything. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, the iPlayer? That works if you're in the UK, but if you're outside of the UK it doesn't. But the YouTube link works worldwide, and as I said it's on the BBC's official YouTube channel. As for "the reasons and occasions we avoid using YouTube" and the earlier erroneous claim that "we don't use those at all", I refer you to WP:YOUTUBE (emphasis added):

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.

In this particular case, since the YouTube video has been released by the copyright holder, on their official YouTube page, and the iPlayer link is not playable to all users, we should use the YouTube link. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we are able to use the YouTube link in this case. As pointed out, there is no blanked ban. The problem with YouTube links is that most of the content fails for copyright or similar reasons. But, none of that is an issue here. It's an official publication on the YouTube account of the copyright holder, so there's no question that the copyright holder has made it available on YouTube.
Alternately, we could use BBC America's page on their website, which itself links to their official publication on YouTube. I don't think this step is necessary, but it could be a compromise link that addresses both of your concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess it isn't necessary. Looking over the material, it is the BBC's YouTube Channel, so it passes muster there. I shpuld have looked at the link more carefully. And you are completely correct - there isn't a blanket ban on using YT, but it often feels like a pretty sturdy shawl. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Hi, what are people's thoughts on jointly nominating this and War Doctor for DYK? (If no one replies, I will likely nominate this tomorrow.) Thanks, Matty.007 19:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not? Sounds like a fun little item to show. Sir Rhosis (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will now nominate, and we will hopefully be able to run this (perhaps with a picture in the lead) on the 50th anniversary. Thanks, Matty.007 11:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Improvements[edit]

It's really incredible how difficult it is to make simple improvements to wikipedia, and how often people will revert for no reason whatsoever. Here's an explanation of the very simple and very obvious improvements that keep getting reverted.

Before After Reason
Written by Steven Moffat, it starred Paul McGann as the Doctor It was written by Steven Moffat, and starred Paul McGann as the Doctor Participle clauses imply a connection between the events. The former wording implied that it starred Paul McGann because it was written by Steven Moffat. This is not true.
The episode, set during the Time War, shows the previously unseen last moments of the Eighth Doctor (McGann) The episode is set during the Time War, and shows the previously unseen last moments of the Eighth Doctor (McGann) The former wording suggests that its setting during the Time War is an aside, subordinate to the fact that it shows the last moments of McGann's Doctor. Its setting in the Time War is not an aside but a central fact.
It is notable for featuring McGann's second onscreen appearance as the Doctor It features McGann's second onscreen appearance as the Doctor Contravenes the manual of style
It is also, in the series' chronology, the first appearance of the War Doctor. It is also the first appearance of the War Doctor in the series' chronology. Former wording implies that there could be some other sense in which it is his first appearance, and interrupts the sentence to deliver this implication. Revised wording is in clear, normal English.

I wait for the explanation of why these clear, simple and obvious edits were described as "not an improvement", "Clumsy edits", "Still clumsy edits", "still not an improvement", "Not an improvement: clunkier style". If there is any other explanation than simple inability to write well and to understand good writing, I'll be interested to hear it. 200.83.178.121 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about all of these. 1 and 2: Participle clauses do not imply a connection, they simply help break the verb-subject-complement order which gets clunky if used in every phrase. This is part of "good writing". 3 It does not contravene the manual of style in the least as it is supported by most sources. 4) There IS an other sense in which its is NOT his first appearance: the real-life order of episodes. Mezigue (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so just an inability to write well and to understand good writing. Check any good guide to grammar and you'll see that participle clauses do indeed express a connection. 200.83.178.121 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It really is incredible the lengths people will go to to compromise the quality of the encyclopaedia. I guess that when there is a paucity of incentives to write well, and a surfeit of incentives to attack anonymous editors, that's how things go. If I corrected only spelling mistakes, I'd get reverted, people would tell me there was a "consensus" for the misspelling, I'd get instructed to "take it to talk", and people would say that correct spelling was "not an improvement". And they'd get some kind of kick out of doing so. They'd actually enjoy that, so far has wikipedia drifted from anything remotely resembling an encyclopaedia. 200.83.178.121 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite done with the persecution complex? If you corrected spelling mistakes, there would be no problem. Instead you are trying to impose your clunky writing and random obsession against certain phrases. Mezigue (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have, in fact, been reverted for correcting spelling mistakes, among many other things. I am, in fact, persecuted, for making simple uncontroversial improvements. People do, in fact, have a problem with that. Including, evidently, you. If you want to use the word "clunky", it certainly doesn't apply to the changes I made. It is also, in the series' chronology, the first appearance of the War Doctor is quite plainly more clunky than It is also the first appearance of the War Doctor in the series' chronology. 200.83.178.121 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guys... really? Stop this slow edit warring. This is looking like a personal vedetta. Mezigue If this is a banned editor, show some proof, otherwise stick to the content. Now on the face of it, I agree that the IP's edits are an improvement; the language looks less constructed, so it reads more natural. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to poke my head around the door and say that I thought the IP's version of the text was better, except I would drop the "also" from the fourth bit, and might even condense it further to "It features McGann's second onscreen appearance as the Doctor and the first in the series to feature the War Doctor", and get rid of the comma in the first bit. Also saying "seventeen years earlier in 1996" is a bad idea as it'll date. Now, none of that's anything to do with the MOS or anything, just a simple A / B test of looking at both, which one I preferred. Unfortunately, since the IP's version has been oversighted, I can't tell definitively what the changes are to make a proper, informed decision. I'm now going to go to Drmies' page and cry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first two points are pure style; in my view it is clunky to insist on subject - verb - complement in each sentence and hunt down variations, but it is not a big deal. On the third point however, I completely fail to see why it would contravene the manual of style to state that the minisode is notable for McGann's return, when it is the whole point of it and pretty much all reviews focus on it. It seems that it is an inexplicable pet obsession of this user, who has been hunting the similar "best known for" formula across Wikipedia for years. As for 4, the version that you have just put is plain wrong. It is in the series' chronology the War Doctor's first appearance as we witness him appearing. In real life chronology however (i.e. in broadcasting order) it is his second appearance, after The Name of the Doctor. (Plus you have moved the sentence before an unrelated reference). Mezigue (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously contravenes the MOS because the MOS lists "words to avoid", and "notable" is one of them. Couldn't really be much clearer. As for point 4, my version uses exactly the same words, expressing exactly the same fact, just in an order which avoids interruptions. You spent a while arguing that fewer interruptions was "clunky" or "clumsy" which is obviously false. So now you've switched to saying it's "plain wrong". But clearly, if it is, then your version is also plain wrong. And I didn't move the sentence at all, just the words within it. Why lie? Such behaviour is typical of those trying to find a post hoc justification for pointless reverts, and it's infantile. 186.9.133.121 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that last bit, it's not in any source, or indeed in the body at all, so it shouldn't be in the lead in any case. I'm afraid I haven't kept up with Dr. Who since the days of hiding behind the sofa when Tom Baker was battling Daleks with Sonic screwdrivers, and recall feeling quite deflated when he regenerated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW: 1) I do not believe in the "connection" hypothesis; any connection drawn is grammatical, the rest is suggestion which, in this case, is not very strong. I prefer the "Before" version for reasons of sentence variation. (Let us not confuse grammar with style.) 2) Parenthetic remarks could be argued to be indeed parenthetic ("aside"), but in this case I don't see the problem. (Let us not etc.) In the "After" version one could argue that the comma is redundant (purely mechanical, with a kind of US drone to it), and in both cases "previously unseen" is clunky and redundant. 3) "It is notable for" is a horrible construction and in this case there is no defense for it. This is a Dr. Who episode? Then it is notable (apparently--since every single TV show episode seems to warrant its own article) for being a Dr. Who episode. If sources indicate the appearance of this or that character is important, phrase it differently. Like, elegantly. 4) The "After" version is clearly superior; the parenthetic remark breaks up any kind of rhythm and in this case does appear to be parenthetic, an aside, when "first appearance" is essentially connected to the chronology.

    Dear IP editor, there are no "good guides to grammar", really, unless you mean "good and technical books that give proper descriptions of the grammar of the English language", but that's not what you mean. There are good style guides, some of which express their convictions boldly and with good arguments. There is something to be said for this connection between introductory participial phrase and subject ("the events"?), but that falls under the purview of style, not of grammar. According to some, "the missing subject of a non-finite clause in adjunct function MUST be under obligatory syntactic determination by the subject of the matrix clause" is indeed a rule of grammar, but it is certainly not universally accepted as such. Have a nice day y'all, Drmies (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, nice to see you and it's always good to hear your views. Actually, a text book rather than a style guide was what I meant. Participle clauses do express a connection: that's not a matter of style or preference, or a hypothesis. See for example "Participle clauses give information about condition, reason, result or time". The sentence as it was could be used if implicitly prefaced by "Because it was", but there is no cause and effect connecting the writer and the lead actor. And I agree that sentence variation is a desirable thing but English is, fundamentally, an SVO language, so trying to avoid the SVO ordering of sentences is rather futile. There are lots of ways to avoid stale writing, but I don't agree that misusing participle clauses is a sensible one. 186.9.133.121 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pleasure is all mine. If I had more time (PL 10-12 are on the menu, two minutes from now) I'd follow your link and then expostulate at great length (sorry to disappoint, haha). I think you are more strict, more prescriptivist than I am; more interesting than that, to me, is what the British Council has to say and what its role is--besides its arguments. Yes, I'm getting ready for Advanced English Grammar this summer which, unfortunately, is not offered online. I suppose you can fly to Dallas and from there straight to Montgomery, but it's not really worth your time, I'd say. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prescriptivist! Now there's an insult :) Actually in the prescriptivist/descriptivist continuum I'm a fan of Geoffrey K. Pullum and I love the withering scorn he pours on those of a prescriptivist viewpoint. I would not bother to change "comprised of" if I saw it, for example, because it's well attested over many decades in normal English usage, and the MOS is silent on it. But in this case, the use of participle clauses to associate unrelated facts with each other is simply not well attested in normal English usage. I'm looking now at a few classic works of English literature and I have yet to find a participle clause that doesn't express a connection. Could be that I'm biased and I'm just not seeing them though. 186.9.131.144 (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was citing Huddleston and Pullum (A Student's Introduction 209), haha. Later, Drmies (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on The Night of the Doctor[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on The Night of the Doctor which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/p/steven-moffat-paul-mcgann-create-a-series-of-live-action-eighth-doctor-adventures
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on The Night of the Doctor[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on The Night of the Doctor which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/p/steven-moffat-paul-mcgann-create-a-series-of-live-action-eighth-doctor-adventures
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fan reaction[edit]

from The Night of the Doctor#Fan_reaction: "stated that further mini-episodes with high production values would be produced and would be surprising for viewers and even the BBC." - 2 and a bit years since this statement - personally I'm still waiting for that surprise - kind of hoping it is "Surprise! we were lying about no series this year" :) Anyway on to my point, while it is true SM stated that - in hindsight it now seems like an untrue statement that warrants either clarification or removal. I wasn't immediately sure which way to go - thought clarification would possibly be OR - so I was leaning towards removal. Dresken (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay, since it's an actual plan/policy mentioned by Moffat through an official channel, directly attributed to the mini-episode's success. You have a point about clarity, though. If we could find a source grumbling about the BBC's failure to live up to this promise, that would be ideal, but there's nothing untrue (as such) in the sentence as it currently stands. —Flax5 16:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in variant Day of the Doctor?[edit]

Sometime in the 2015-2019 time frame, I caught the tail end of a late-night BBC America repeat presentation of Day of the Doctor. I was surprised to note that the credit scroll began with a line for Paul McGann and the other players from "Night of the Doctor," followed by the usual listings for Day -- I regret not having recorded this for evidence. (I think that the scroll contained the text "Night of the Doctor" to introduce these names and to separate them from the cast proper, though I couldn't swear.)

It would seem that this scroll was prepared for some variant version of the latter film, either one that incorporated this short film as a prologue, or just to facilitate running the short film immediately prior to the main feature. Has anyone else seen it in this form? Is there any record of an enhanced version of Day? WHPratt (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Night_of_the_Doctor&oldid=1208002389"