Talk:The Sontaran Experiment

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Novelisation publicaton date?[edit]

The infobox says December 1978, but the text says November. Which is correct? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glyn Jones[edit]

Is Jones the only person to both write for and act in the programme?--82.0.207.86 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Victor Pemberton and Mark Gatiss. DonQuixote (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costume Error[edit]

There is a significant costuming error between this story and the next, which makes the continuity of the programme problematic. I've tried to add this to the article, but it keeps being deleted as "fancruft", whatever that means and also dismissed by a "so?" Before I am banned from editing, I think it worth noting here that this is a big continuity error and worthy of inclusion. The main characters travel in this story by T-Mat Beam and not in the TARDIS. They have no access to any wardrobe or change of clothes. In between demateralising at the end of this story and re-appearing at the start of the next, Sarah Jane has undergone a costume change. It's clearly simply a production error, but it could also lead rise to speculation that another unseen story took place between the two adventures. For this alone, it is worth noting. 71.146.16.112 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia like this is non notable and his considered unencyclopedic per long standing consensus here at Wikipedia. This is a television show made under time and money constraints and continuity errors happen all of the time. That does not make them notable. See WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY among many others for why your edits are being removed. Since these are obviously important to you I can only suggest that you would be happier putting these items in a blog or the Dr Who Wikia where there is more room for this kind of trivia. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be a self-appointed guardian of all Doctor Who on wiki and are determined to win this war - your own description - at all costs, I expect I shall be banned imminently. Shame that the bullies always get their own way on wiki. 71.146.16.112 (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have certain policies, the most important of which are the three "core policies": verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. There are several other policies, see what wikipedia is. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then apply those policies consistently and honestly. That is not what MarnetteD is doing. I am receiving threats, yet that editor is not and apparently deletes any attempt to warn them as "nonsense". I suggest you read the pages in question. They are full of what MarnetteD describes as "fancruft", yet my attempts to remove them have been blocked. So they are clearly bullying and singling out specific editors rather than applying consistent wiki policy. 71.146.16.112 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because certain editors have applied certain conventions does not necessarily means that those same conventions should be applied across the board: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I think the best thing to do here is to let the various articles stand, and have a calm discussion where a wider community may moderate; I have started such a discussion, at WT:DOCTORWHO#Fancruft. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very sensible. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's OK for MarnetteD to apply what policies they like when they feel like it and to ignore them when they don't. And anyone who challenges MarnetteD will be threatened and banned and all their edits removed. You have just made a complete farce of wiki. Not very sensible at all. 71.146.4.82 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Let's be constructive about this. Do you have any reliable sources that mention the inconsistency in Sarah's boots (colour, style or otherwise)? By reliable sources, we do not mean watching the DVDs and noting what she's wearing at various times - that counts as original research, which is forbidden. We mean finding a book or a website which is neither a fansite nor a blog, but which is written by reputable authors of Doctor Who literature. This source must explicitly state that an error of continuity occurred between these two stories, and also that this event was significant in some way. If you can obtain such a source, note it here; and let's see if we can work up a sentence or paragraph which is less likely to be struck out again. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying in this situation RedRose64. Even with reliable sources my previous assertion would remain "This is a television show made under time and money constraints and continuity errors happen all of the time. That does not make them notable." I see that you cover that with your request that proof be provided that "the event was significant in some way". Per WP:TRIVIA I think that will take some doing. Trivia like this is fun and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it isn't really encyclopedic. There are plenty of other places on the web where the editor (who is now up to three different IP's in their editing) could put this and I think that the Dr Who wikia would be perfect for them. Thanks again for all of your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the reverts seem to have flared up after my last revert, this is silly; this is one user arguing against consensus for a mention about costume goofs not an edit war, Marnette had every right to continously revert him, the IP didn't listen to BRD and was being disruptive. Costume goofs or any sort of goofs have no place on wikipedia maybe TARDIS.wikia or any fan site but not here.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601234945/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/SontaranExp.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/SontaranExp.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]