Talk:Day of the Moon

Cast
Do we have confirmation that Richard Nixon is in the second part too ? Hektor (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB lists Stuart Milligan, who plays the role of Nixon, as being a member of the cast for the second episode. That's pretty good confirmation, but it could be wrong. IMDB has gotten casting details wrong in the past. We should know soon though! Jaiotu (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB is (like Wikipedia) editable by anybody so is not "pretty good confirmation" of anything other than the stupidity of human nature. ╟─TreasuryTag► high seas ─╢ 11:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In the next time trailer Richard Nixon isn't seen prompting he doesn't appear in the episode but towards the latter seconds there is a voice wishing the moon astronauts good luck which sounds like Nixon. Marker10 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Radio Times confirms that Nixon appears next week. ╟─TreasuryTag► condominium ─╢ 13:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis
I'm a bit new to wikipedia and added the Synopsis form BBC America a few days back, now i wonder, what was wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.90.84.146 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This? It was copied directly from the BBC America page so a copyright violation. Edgepedia (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps editing the "Plot" section and removing vitally important points regarding the ending. While I agree the majority of the plot section should be kept brief, this episode can not be properly understood without the 2 paragraphs that are continually deleted by the same person. Please stop unless you are willing to defend your reasons on this talk page. Otherwise I will keep reverting it back indefinitely. StacyGMU (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC) StacyGMU
 * What you are adding adds nothing to the understanding of the episode (the episode takes much leeway with the timing of the events of Apollo 11 - the events appear to be a few hours from launch to moon touchdown when they were over a course of several days). Fictional historical accuracy, that's all we have to ascribe it to.
 * Also be aware that even if you think you are right, you don't force an edit war, or else you will be blocked for such edits. --M ASEM (t) 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Trailer Synopsis
Nonprofessional, uncited, and not in line with any of wikipedia's other content styles, and both unnecessary and soon to be irrelevant so I am deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.153.226 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Genocide is the proper word given the circumstances
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

By arranging for the Silence to issue a subconscious directive "you should kill us all on sight", the Doctor ensured that all human beings would attack all Silence and attempt to kill them immediately. Very much the definition of genocide.

Since you seem to think I'm using Original Research

The Silence unwittingly leave a subconscious directive to the human race to kill every Silent on sight due to the Doctor's modifications of the Apollo 11 capsule to replay a video phone recording. (what part of that sentence is OR?)

This is in stark contrast to the Doctor's "man who never would" speech from the episode The Doctor's Daughter, where he describes a society built by two species working together (what part of this sentence is OR?)

and is partly a fulfillment of the accusation Dalek-creator Davros made when saying the Doctor turns his companions into weapons in "The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End". (what part of this sentence is OR?)

Also, strikingly, while ensuring the genocide of The Silence, Dr. River Song is at his side firing an energy pistol, as he instead uses his ever-present sonic screwdriver. (what part of this sentence is OR?) -- Avanu (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't so much the word 'genocide' I was objecting to, actually; rather, the whole tone of the section is your own personal opinion. "Strikingly" – who's to say that? "In stark contrast" – do you have a source carrying out thematic comparisons, or is this just your own viewpoint? These are the issues with your proposed text IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag► consulate ─╢ 21:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is like saying Up is the opposite of Down. In Doctor's Daughter, he takes up a gun and orders two races to get along (or else), and says they should be like a "man who never would", and tosses the gun aside. In Day of the Moon, we have two races coexisting for millions of years, and suddenly the Doctor decides to arrange circumstances to have *every* human on Earth killing the Silence on sight.  This is nothing if not strikingly different behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It also clearly demonstrates how the Doctor says he is unwilling to even wield a gun, as he and River stand side by side, she shoots, he sonics, yet he just created an army to kill the entire race of the Silence. So when Davros says 'you make your companions into killers', there is no OR needed to see that this relates completely. -- Avanu (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a classic example of synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are taking the (undoubted) facts that a) the Doctor made a speech against violence and tossed a gun aside, and b) encouraged the entire world to kill the aliens which were enslaving them, but your conclusion c) that this is a notable and 'striking' stark contrast is simply your own spin on things. If what you are saying is so undoubtedly true and universally acknowledgeable, then you should have no difficulty in identifying a reliable source to cite. ╟─TreasuryTag► quaestor ─╢ 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So, by simply rewording it thusly:

The Silence unwittingly leave a subconscious directive to the human race to kill every Silent on sight due to the Doctor's modifications of the Apollo 11 capsule to replay a video phone recording. Yet, i In the episode, The Doctor's Daughter, the Doctor described a society built by two species working together, and instructed them to abhore violence and be the "man who never would". In "The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End", Dalek-creator Davros accused the Doctor of making his companions into weapons, and in Day of the Moon, the Doctor makes all of humanity into a force to destroy the Silence. While ensuring the genocide of The Silence, Dr. River Song is at his side firing an energy pistol, as he instead extols the use of his ever-present sonic screwdriver.

This avoids the strong language and tells the story, and allows the reader to make their own conclusions, I would think? -- Avanu (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Drawing even the slightest thematic comparison ("yet") between two episodes is synthesis unless you have a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag► draftsman ─╢ 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There... no more "yet". -- Avanu (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, if you can't see my point that the whole concept of your proposal is steeped in synthesis and original research then I'm afraid I don't know what more I can do to enlighten you. ╟─TreasuryTag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I can see it... that's why I reworked it based on your critique. Its funny to me because although I agree in principle about the idea of OR here, I think the logical step is so tiny that you'd have to be unbelievably dense not to see it.  I agree that word choices can create synthesis, and so hopefully this strips it all away and still shows the point. Other question though... are you saying that the arrangement of factual sentences is *also* Original Research? -- Avanu (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've said what I have to say, and I've had confirm that I'm not being delusional. Stating two factual sentences in a way destined to lead readers to a certain conclusion is synthesis. Have you not read WP:SYN? Look at the very first example there, it's a precise parallel. "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." Both facts stated are undoubtedly true. But it's still original research because of the obvious implication. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Like you said to me, it is the word "but" or "yet" that creates the Synthesis. I got rid of that.  A better comparison would be "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security. Since 1945, there have 160 wars throughout the world." -- Avanu (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand why I am saying that your proposal is synthesis, and you would like to understand, then you need to read WP:SYN over and over and over again until you get it. It's surprisingly simple, and it has helpful examples which are very analogous to the paragraph we're discussing. That's all I can advise you; beyond that, I can't see any object in prolonging this discussion further. If you re-insert the material, then it'll be time to start an RfC and get broader views. ╟─TreasuryTag► District Collector ─╢ 22:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TT is right the sentence is SYNTH it can not stay-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the sentence was not synthesis, it would just be random facts from random Doctor Who stories, which would be irrelevant to this episode. It is indeed synthesis and unless and until properly sourced cannot be in the article. However give it a day or two, I'm sure many reviewers and writers will pick up on the same theme, its already making its way across the various forums. Jasonfward (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ok. -- Avanu (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that The Doctor didn't arrange the genocide of the Silence per se. Instead he tricked the Silence into signing their own death warrants, something he has done before on several occasions, most notably in remembrance of the Daleks. The Silence said "you should kill us on sight". The Silence had for centuries brainwashed everyone into obeying their orders. All the Doctor did was show people the message of a member of the Silence giving his opinion. Wordforge (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 16:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Drivel being added to article
I've requested protection. Meanwhile, could someone please delete this nonsense – I'm at 3RR now. Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 22:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it, but I don't really think using language such as 'drivel' to describe the probably well intentioned work of another contributor is helpful. --86.185.86.83 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag► belonger ─╢ 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * already reverted that synthesis about the girl being related to the doctor-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  22:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Causality Nitpick
The Doctor did not in fact violate his rule of going back to save people from death. He already had foreknowledge that she was alive to die at a later part of her life which she did in Forest of the Dead. Knowing her to not have died then in 1969 in an earlier part of her life, saving her was fine as long as no one had established her death then, which no one did. Note the lack of body bag at Area 51. You might wish to fix the article on that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.156.94 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That point of the article is entirely original speculation. I think it should go for now. Andral (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Amy's pregnancy
Let's be clear about this – what was depicted on the television screen was the TARDIS scanner fluctuating between indicating Amy was and was not pregnant. To say anything else ("both pregnant and not pregnant" or "pregnant then not pregnant then pregnant then not pregnant") would be guesswork unless it can be cited. ╟─TreasuryTag► hemicycle ─╢ 15:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just wrote all this and then my browser decided to wipe it all so now I don't have to bother again. U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noted that the pregnancy scan was 'inconclusive'. I do think some suggestion of what the scan showed is important, and that phrasing sums up what was seen on screen without providing any sort of guesswork interpretation of it all. --86.185.86.83 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The test was not shown to be inconclusive. We could not see the scanner's screen when the result was delivered, so we don't know what it was. The whole "positive-negative-positive" thing could be (and most probably is) how the TARDIS would always present a pregnancy scan (note the scan was "in progress" the whole time the it was shown on-screen). U-Mos (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have to use phrases such as 'most probably' suggests that your conclusion is as much guess work as any other. We don't KNOW that that is how the TARDIS scanner shows pregnancy scans in progress so perhaps we had best both admit that both of our interpretations are false, and figure out a wording that does not go either way. How would you feel about suggesting that the results of the scan were 'debatable' or 'unclear'?--86.185.86.83 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I described as "most probably", that the TARDIS always performs scans that way, is not in the article (and you are quite right that it shouldn't be). The article reads that the Doctor initiates a pregancy scan on Amy. That is simply what happens: no over-detail and no interpretation. U-Mos (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about just saying what we saw ("the TARDIS scanner fluctuating between indicating Amy was and was not pregnant") and leave it at that? ╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 15:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is necessary, and could cause people to believe there was an inconclusive result when that is not necessarily the case. There's nothing lacking or misleading with the current version. U-Mos (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but ('off the record') it's almost certain that the issue of this pregnancy will return later in the series, and that there's a reason for the fluctuations. Obviously we can't cite that, but I think it would be fair enough to go into somewhat more detail. I'm easy either way though. ╟─TreasuryTag► collectorate ─╢ 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The most non-OR statement we can state is "The Doctor uses the TARDIS scanner to see if Amy is pregnant". We don't know if it ended, if its fluctuating, if the top wobbles and falls over... --M ASEM (t) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We do know that the scan's result is fluctuating (not to say whether or not the pregnancy is): we can see it. First it says positive, then negative, then positive....... We don't know what happened next, no, but it's definitely true that it fluctuated. ╟─TreasuryTag► estoppel ─╢ 15:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we don't know if the bouncing between "yes" and "no" is normal or a result because Amy's special or another external event. If there was a previous use of the scanner where it immediately came out "yes" or "no", then sure, we could say this fluctuates, but we don't have working knowledge of how this scanner works to begin with. --M ASEM (t) 16:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we don't know if the bouncing between "yes" and "no" is normal or a result because Amy's special or another external event. I never suggested such a thing. I merely said that we see the result fluctuating, and that is a statement of the truth. I suggest you look up what 'fluctuating' means. ╟─TreasuryTag► Lord Speaker ─╢ 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From a scientific POV, there's a huge diff between waiting for a machine to give a reading - during which the display may be doing a whole mess of things but nothing of useful information - and when the machine has settled on a reading that fluctuates between possible results. It may be nitpicky, but we've already started down this rabbit trail, and we might as well make sure we follow it to its correct end. --M ASEM (t) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. U-Mos (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the current version leaves the reader wondering what the scan showed, which could leave the episode plot summary feeling incomplete. I know you feel that that is the point, that the episode's plot was incomplete and that no result was shown, but your interpretation is not fact and to my eyes represents one possible, but not definite, interpretation. I'm fine with TT's suggested compromise, since it describes what is seen without giving any suggestion of interpretation. I'm very happy for that to be the text, or indeed for another compromise, but what is there now is not really appropriate. Shall we accept that our positions are direct opposites and both are actually justifiable, so a compromised position like TT's suggestion is the best option? --86.185.86.83 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned (to pick up on TT's response to my last comment), the likelihood of this story strand returning is the reason it is mentioned in the plot synopsis at all. If the fluctuation turns out to be significant then we can return here and edit accordingly. But as it is, it is an insignificant level of detail in a plot synopsis we should be trying our best to keep as concise as possible. U-Mos (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: instead of "initiates" a scan, "performs" it? U-Mos (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a terrible way of putting it, and also suggests Amy knows about it. A better suggestion: "As the trio set off, the Doctor uses the TARDIS scanner to ascertain whether Amy is pregnant." U-Mos (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * U-Mos, I think you're missing the point. Our IP friend here thinks (and I tend to agree) that we should not merely mention the scan's existence, but comment on what we see of its outcome. ╟─TreasuryTag► UK EYES ONLY ─╢ 16:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But we don't see any of the outcome. As I said above, the scan is clearly labelled as "in progress" the entire time it is on-screen. U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That wording is better, but it implies that the Doctor KNOWS by the end of the episode. Can he not 'begin a scan to ascertain whether...', though I would still like something to suggest what we see on screen.--86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any doubt that the Doctor sees the result at the end of the episode? U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. We don't know that he sees the result at all. It might be that the result IS the flickering between pos and neg, and the scan fails to return a result at all. We can only go by what we see on screen, hence describing it without interpretation is best practice.--86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a chance. I'm rewatching from iTunes. The scan starts, the viewer sees the screen and the "positive"/"negative"; we cut to the Doctor's face, he's concerned. Then there is a random beep, and the Doctor cracks a small smile and darts his eyes to Amy/Rory and the scene ends.  Now, I'm 99% sure that with the beep and the Doctor's sidelook that the scan ended and he knows, but at the same time that random beep could be anything as well, so it puts to doubt if the Doctor really knows.   If, radioactively, the Doctor confirms that he performed the scanned and it came out positive or negative in a future episode, we can go back and edit this, but right now, we don't know.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right of course, I went slightly off-topic there and am not suggesting we assert the Doctor knows the result in the article. Also, Masem, I greatly look forward to the Doctor radioactively confirming anything! U-Mos (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes. (Though this is the Doctor...) --M ASEM (t) 16:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "As the trio set off, the Doctor uses the TARDIS scanner to begin a scan to ascertain whether Amy is pregnant. The scanner flickers between negative and positive, but no conclusive result is shown."? --86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with your second sentence, IP, is that we can't suggest no conclusive result is seen by the Doctor. Even "on-screen" presents difficulties, as there's a screen on the screen (keep up). U-Mos (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "As the trio set off, the Doctor discretely uses the TARDIS medical scanner to determine if Amy is pregnant." Until of course such a time as we understand the importance of that scene more. --M ASEM (t) 16:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We are getting there, but I'd be more comfortable with "As the trio set off, the Doctor discretely uses the TARDIS scanner to begin to determine if Amy is pregnant." It removes the suggestion that the Docor knows for sure one way or the other, which we don't know yet. Is that ok?--86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, even better, "As the trio set off, the Doctor discretely uses the TARDIS scanner to attempt to determine if Amy is pregnant."--86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that "begin to" suggests that the Doctor doesn't see a result more than its absence suggests he does. But your latest alternative I consider acceptable. U-Mos (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you might feel that way, hence the second suggestion. I'm glad we could reach a mutually acceptable compromise.Is everyone happy with "As the trio set off, the Doctor discretely uses the TARDIS scanner to attempt to determine if Amy is pregnant."? --86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. Was nice to have a proper civil discussion for once. U-Mos (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking the exact same thing. Nice to have worked with you. Happy editing. --86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a subsequent episode has aired which displays the same inconclusive result, Could there be a criteria now to re-insert on of the statements into the article in some form? FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We still don't have a conclusive answer. It could still be the same scan running, it could be a second scan with the same inconclusive result. What comes out worries the Doctor but that could mean a number of things. --M ASEM  (t) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article just can't describe what is seen on screen. "The continuing scan flicks between positive and negative, appearing to trouble the Doctor." Jasonfward (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one reason would be that we aren't sure if what we see IS what you term a continuing scan or if it is a result. I think the above discussion sets out the cases for and against quite clearly and comes to a suitable, negotiated compromise. --86.166.131.53 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad that the word 'discreetly' is spelt correctly! 94.116.12.113 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've revisted this sentence considering the latest episode's revelation. Take a look. U-Mos (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if the warning not to edit a particular sentence in the paragraph related to Amy's pregnancy refers to the first sentence in the paragraph. I found that sentence hard to understand, and have made some edits to clarify. I did not touch the sentence about the use of the scanner. I hope that's okay -- please take a look. Languorous Lass (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture
What picture would be the best screenshot fo this article? Any suggestions? Ideally we better reach a conclusion before the episode expires on BBC Iplayer (in 7 days since air) so that I or any UK wikipedian can take a screenshot of the required scene. --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i> (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A word of warning – no. The non-free content policy makes it clear that this is not the correct approach. You mustn't say, "I want the article to have some image. Let's think of what would be easy to shoehorn past the criteria." <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► co-prince ─╢ 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But there would be non free screenshot of the episodes... unless you count leaked onset photographs --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i> (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be working from the premise that the article must have a picture. That is not so. The image you just uploaded has been removed, because it does not meet the non-free content criteria. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - I can't think of any image that is necessary to understand the episode. We'll ahve to wait to see if any reviewers or the like comment on specific scenes. --M ASEM (t) 21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, it's been restored by Sarek, who apparently hasn't read WP:BRD, and who apparently enjoys creating needless drama, so I've nominated it for deletion. Thanks Sarek. You're a credit to Wikipedia. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 21:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. I do like that you accuse me of not reading BRD when you apparently haven't read it either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bold: Twy uploaded a decorative image. Revert: I deleted it. Edit war: you replaced it. For fuck's sake. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► duumvirate ─╢ 21:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't involve myself in picture discussions because I don't understand them, but I will say this: no one gets to decide that another editor has made a bold edit unless they say so. WP:BRD is clear that it is a process to be invoked by experienced users, and it is totally out of order to force other users into it. If you want to use the process, then it's your edit that was bold and Sarek's that was a reversion. U-Mos (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's only to be invoked by experienced users. So I probably shouldn't have expected Sarek to play the game then *sigh* <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► Lord Speaker ─╢ 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with Sarek "playing along" or not. Ty's original edit was not a bold edit because he didn't say it was, so you cannot treat it as one. U-Mos (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And it wasn't. It was just a routine adding of pictures so I thought nothing contriversal there. Also, your tone (Treasuretab) seem to imply Sarah is not an experienced editor (and in fact you disdain her)! --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i> (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should have said WP:BOLD edit. Pls comment or something of the likes --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i> (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you have prefered File:Day of the moon silence.jpg instead? Edit: And you mispelt my name. Furthermore, there is a tradition that all Doctor Who episodes have at least one scene from the episode. And yes, the "regenrating girl" is not that important to the plotline. Heck! It only appear at the very last scene as a "teaser."  I intended it to be in the body of the plot so that we can see the "mystery girl" regenerating.  The other picture is used in the tardis wikia as its front picture. --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i>  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you have prefered File:Day of the moon silence.jpg instead? No, not really. There is a tradition that all Doctor Who episodes have at least one scene from the episode. No there isn't. The other picture is used in the tardis wikia as its front picture. That's not relevant here. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► pikuach nefesh ─╢ 22:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that every DW ep on WIkipedia has a screenshot of one of the "crutial" or "climax" scene that wrap up the entire ep . Strike that not all episodes. But it would be great to have a scene. --<i style="font-family:Kristen ITC; color:green;">Tyw7</i> (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from (random selection) Silence in the Library, The Doctor's Daughter, A Christmas Carol (Doctor Who), The Big Bang (Doctor Who), Cold Blood (Doctor Who), Amy's Choice (Doctor Who), Flesh and Stone and The Time of Angels, I guess? <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► estoppel ─╢ 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several that lack it (see, for example "A Christmas Carol"). And that's not a reason to use NFC per WP:NFCC (there is no allowance to have a screenshot from a TV episode for simple illustration).  It should be either a scene discussed critically by reviewers or production, or a scene where we can be more concise with the image than we can with words (Which this isn't). --M ASEM  (t) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I politely suggest that we wind up discussion here so as to keep it centralised at the FfD page? (Not a binding request, but I guess it would be helpful to everyone.) <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews
I've found some reviews: there's The Telegraph, IGN, The Guardian, and Digital Spy. What other websites would be reliable? Glimmer721 <sup style="color:blue;">talk  20:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

River's kiss
Sorry, chaps. I've got a real nitpick here.

The section in the wiki article currently reads:

"She kisses the Doctor goodbye, and as the Doctor has never kissed her before deduces that this is her last kiss with him"

Now, the line that River says is along the lines of "and also a last time". I've spoken to people who interprit this, as the article currently suggests, that this is the last time she kisses him. I think this is incorrect for the following reasons:

1) She's still a doctor, not a professor, which sort of implies she gets made a professor and then dies immediately afterards. Possible, if unlikely. 2) We know, from Silence in the library, that the doctor takes her out on a date immediately before she goes to The Library. It's highly unlikely that he said goodbye to his wife, who he knows with absolute certinty, is about to die, without kissing her.

My point being that, whilst it's possible that River never kisses the doctor again, I think it's more likely that she's just reflecting on the whole - meeting in the wrong order is painful - thing she was talking about in episode 6.01

As it's not exactly clear either way, I'd suggest leaving the sentence as a relatively neutral:

"She kisses the Doctor goodbye and it is revealed that this is the first time the doctor has kissed her."

I apologise if this is a little too nitpicky, this is the first thing I've really wanted to correct on wiki...

Disposable157 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty blatant indication. It's WP:SYNTH to connect these to the (admittedly tricky) situations described in Silence in the Library, and within this episode there was a direct assertion from River that "my first are your lasts". Her clear shock when learning it is the Doc's first kiss with her, and the explicit dialogue that follows, makes it clear that (whether it turns out to be the case or not) she believes she will not kiss him again. However, having said that I will alter "is her last kiss" to "will be her last kiss", to make it clear that what was shown in the episode was River's belief only. U-Mos (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That works for me.

It's a bit of an odd line. I get the feeling Moffat may be going for a retcon as the direct implication is that River and the Doctor are heading in opposite directions in the timeline rather than just meeting in the wrong order (as had been previously suggested). It could be all just a massive misunderstanding of course. -shrug- we'll find out later in the series I suppose.

Disposable157 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the sentence about the kiss to be very hard to understand. I have made an edit to the sentence that I hope will clarify it without disturbing the language about which everyone was concerned. Please take a look. Languorous Lass (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)