Talk:Russell T Davies/Archive 1

Middle Initial
Should this be Russell T Davies instead? In all the credits for him I've seen he's credited without the period after the T, since the T doesn't really stand for anything... --khaosworks 06:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably no ".", though I note on the The End of the World article you amended Russel T Davies to Russel T. Davies in one of the notes :) Tim! (talk) 08:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That was just to keep the link consistent, really... --khaosworks 09:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably should be moved - I think it's just the depressing prospect of all those links to change that's stopped anybody doing it before! Angmering 11:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found manuscripts that unequivically prove that the entirety of the name Russell T Davies is a pseudonym. In a 1996 interview he states the rationale behind the name was "I'm a retard. I'm a retard without an EAR [Russell does in fact only have one ear - the other is prosthetic]. Retard - ear = RTD." He extrapolated the name from there. You can use this information for free (fair use dawg)
 * Whether he's come up with which name the T stands for (and which is supposed to be abbreviated) or not is irrelevant (he probably never bothered). It's an abbreviation regardless of which name it is -- unless T is a name in itself, and it isn't. LarRan (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare Harry Truman: the T doesn't stand for anything. It's a moot point because in the UK, we don't tend to add periods after abbreviated words anyway (compare "Dr Harold Shipman" to "Dr. Ron Paul") Sceptre (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you verify that with a link to a discussion or consensus? Thanks. LarRan (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait? You're asking for a link to a Wikipedia discussion to verify a British grammatical quirk? Sceptre (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for a consensus on that quirk, if you can point me to one. There are many differences between American and British English, and many of them have led to debate in wikipedia on whether this or that rule, spelling, etc, should apply. Thus, a consensus has to be reached in order to avoid edit wars on such matters. But virtually all articles on people with middle initials that I have seen here have had a period (or full stop, there you go) after the initial in order to mark that it's an abbreviation, regardless of the nationality of the person. Since you are making the claim (that a middle initial shouldn't be followed by a period for British people, due to that quirk), I'm asking you: is there such a consensus (most likely in the biography project)? Or is it purely anecdotal? LarRan (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest I can think of right now would be WP:ENGVAR, which says that people associated with the UK should be written and formatted under British grammar rules. Even were that not the case, I believe this would fall under WP:RETAIN. Incidentally, Doctor Who Magazine has always published his "Production Notes" column without a period after the T. Nor does it add a period after "Dr" or "Ltd". Sceptre (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll counter with a few examples of my own: how about T. S. Eliot (although he was born in USA), D. H. Lawrence, W. H. Auden and W. E. Johns? Although I believe that you're correct that a lot of people don't necessarily write the period out, I'm less sure that it's a British phenomenon. It seems more universal to me. Which leaves us with what consensus says, and I believe there should be a period, "because all other articles have it" (I seem to be no better than you at finding consensuses). The only way I think the article could be kept without the period in the name is if Davies himself explicitly stated that there should be no period. LarRan (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From this source: "Russell T Davies (he added the "T" to his name, no punctuation)" Rob T Firefly (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories?
I notice RTD is listed under Category:Doctor Who writers; does he also merit inclusion in Category:Doctor Who producers, as he is THE producer of the new series? Or is that 'to many categories'? Radagast 18:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point, I added to him to that Cat. Tim! (talk) 19:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Education?
Would it be too much detail to mention that he was educated at Olchfa Comprehensive School in Swansea, prior to his university education at Oxford? --EdB 22:53, 12 July 2005 (BST)
 * I don't think so - I've added it to the piece. :-) Angmering 10:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality
There is no need to mention his sexuality in the opening intro. In fact, there is no need to mention it at all unless it appears in a 'Personal life' section. Removed.


 * I agree there doesn't seem to be any need to mention it in the lead, but I dispute there'd be no need to mention it otherwise. His sexuality has had an important impact on his career, as he himself discussed in his 2003 Guardian article "Transmission was madness, honestly". Angmering 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was a little surprised to find that it wasn't mentioned at all in the article. I agree that it's in poor taste to put a kind of "look! He's gay!" mention in the opening paragraph, but it is relevant to his work. Queer as Folk is regarded as groundbreaking, he introduced the first more-or-less openly bisexual character to Doctor Who, and in an interview I read somewhere he mentions that even one of his children's programmes hinted that the series' evil genius was a lesbian. Whether he's straight or gay is important in analysing this. I would have added it myself, but there was no obvious place to neatly insert it and I don't feel like making a more substantial edit at the moment. PeteVerdon 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The interview you're thinking of (actually an article) is the very one linked to above. :-) Angmering 09:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, Russell T. Davies is not the first gay producer of Doctor Who. The late John Nathan-Turner was producer for the show's last ten years; however, it must be noted that his lifestyle never became a subject of discussion, nor did it affect his leadership of the show.  Russell T. Davies, on the other hand, has radically altered the 'family show' aspects of Doctor Who to the point where some fans might not be comfortable with either of his new series.  While most of his Doctor Who stories do not actually push this envelope, the character of Captain Jack Harkness has provoked concern from some fans, especially in the United States.  I suppose the climate is different with the BBC now, because twenty years ago, John Nathan-Turner would have probably lost his job! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J Leatherwood (talk • contribs) 16:08, June 8, 2006  (UTC)


 * I suspect that the differences you refer to are less a reflection of a change in the BBC as such than a change in the general attitudes of the British public, and views of what is acceptable family viewing. When John Nathan-Turner was Doctor Who's producer, I think the only discussion of homosexuality on British television was in "worthy" serious dramas.  That isn't the case any more, and the lack of response (in Britain, at least) to the occasional gay allusions in Davies' Doctor Who shows that audience expectations have changed.  I don't think that Davies has really "radically altered the 'family show' aspects of Doctor Who" — it's just that what a family show is in 2005 or 2006 is different from what it was in the 1980s.


 * Two more thoughts: first, from a recent interview with John Barrowman:
 * I did a Doctor Who convention, and I was sitting at a table, and this young boy came up to me and his Dad was with him. I said “How would you like me to sign your picture?” and he said “However you want”, so I said “I always put ‘Love, John Barrowman' - then, you know, ‘Captain Jack', at the bottom.”
 * And he said — can I tell you something — he said “I don't care if Captain Jack likes boys and girls. I think he's a great action hero, and he's my hero.” And his Dad looked at me, and I looked up at his Dad, and I said, “You know what, you did a damn good job raising that kid.”
 * And second, from a New York Times article about the series' revival, a quote from Steven Moffat:
 * "You come across the occasional nutter who will talk about Russell's gay agenda — I imagine he keeps it in a pink folder in a special leopardskin safe — but this is possibly the most heterosexual Doctor we've ever had," Mr. Moffat said. "Clearly, Russell's gay agenda is to turn everyone straight."
 * —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This guy must not have seen Torchwood - where, improbably and ridiculously, everything is gay or bisexual. Big Gay Russell's Big Gay Agenda is real.  70.49.241.140 13:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Davis's sexual orientation and I don't know if he has a 'gay agenda' or not. What I do know is that all his stuff has an odd, slightly camp, smartarsed tone to it which many people find irritating and inappropriate. The article reads like a hagiography and I can find no mention of negative criticism of his work. Unfortunately Davis and his mates in Cardiff can do no wrong as far as the UK media is concerned, so we can look forward to much more of this annoying tedious stuff in the future. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "personal life" section for mention of his partner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

BAFTAs
Technically, the Dennis Potter award is given to a writer for his body of work, rather than one series. Even if the Academy were only taking the past year into account, Casanova would also have been an influence in their decision.

I suspect that the reference to the award would more properly belong outside the DW block in this entry, for that reason. However, right now I think moving it could hamper article readability. Maybe we should revisit this once the general public have had a chance to view the awards ceremony (due to air on ITV1 on May 8 2006). -- Smatthewman 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. (I had added it to the Doctor Who section before noticing that it had already been mentioned further down the page; I then removed the later mention.)  I'll go with whatever placement people think is best. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

MGM
I couldn't find the original citation for this:


 * In an April 2006 interview, Davies referred to his next project after Doctor Who and Torchwood as "MGM (More Gay Men)". This will revisit some of the themes of Queer as Folk, but "a bit more 40-year-old".

But I did find other references to the project, and have put a different mention with citation in. If anyone remembers where this particular quote came from, please let us know and it can be put back in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind— it was from the same Independent piece that called him "the saviour of Saturday night drama". I just had to pay for the full article to get to that bit... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

POV
The main article comes across as shockingly POV. Rather than maintaining a balanced, neutral stance (as Wikipedia articles are intended to) it merely gushes on about Davies as if he can do no wrong. Davies might be one of the more prominent writers on British television at the moment, but he has also been one of the most heavily criticised as well. He was hugely criticised for negative stereotyping in QAF, and again with Bob & Rose, Doctor Who has been a ratings success but has also been derided as juvenile rubbish by some, and as for Torchwood....

I've addressed some of these issues, but perhaps there should probably be a separate "Criticisms" section to show a more balanced view. There's nothing wrong with listing Davies' achievements, as long as we list his failures and flaws as a writer as well. Please note peeps, this is not a RTD fanpage. MassassiUK 07:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I found that Damaged Goods, though a well laid out article, seems to have about 10 times more content on his use of themes (though some of it smacks of trivia than genuine themes), how he came to write the book and critics reaction than it does on the contents of the plot. So long as you have appropriate sources for critcisms you should have no trouble. GraemeLeggett 10:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood
I have to question this article's negative assessment of Torchwood. 2 early, negative, critical responses have been given as sources.

The Torchwood article itself quotes a broader range of sources, which give a more mixed picture, and should also be quote here for balance. Queer as Folk was also initially panned by the critics, who were singing it praises by the end of it's run. Torchwood is one of Davies more daring projects, that (due to it's subject matter) would never have the mass family appeal of Dr. Who. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's not meant to be. Need to be less POV here. Indisciplined 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, also the "despite the drop in ratings" comment gives the impression that the show later underperformed when it did not and simply went from getting pretty fantastic ratings at first to getting "pretty good" ratings. According to sources I've read the ratings for Torchwood generally out performed other multi-channel/digital offerings other than some episodes of Lost and The Hogfather. The Appreciation Indexes for Torchwood have been largely good, it often getting close to the and occasionally hitting 85 (excellent) mark on BBC Three, of course AI is effected by BBC Three and Two having smaller (and therefore more likely to be made up of mostly fans) audiences but it still shouldn't be sniffed at. If it have been doing poorly it would be regularly be scoring closer to the 60 mark. OG's Torchwood News page has summaries of all the series ratings. --GracieLizzie 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Will fix both. Jim 16:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Appreciation Index isnt really a relevant source to mention here as, like you said, it will be made up mostly of fans. Torchwood was indeed struggling ratings-wise later into its first season (one episode barely even scratched 2 million, and that was with all three screenings added together - which is poor for a series that cost and was promoted this much). As for quoting the "two early, negative, critical responses" as sources - I'm afraid that they are still valid criticisms whether you agree with them or not. I dont actually recall the series gaining higher praise as the series went on, in fact it was quite the opposite - and this was reflected in the declining ratings. I agree that the POV of the article needs to be as neutral as possible, but that means highlighting the flaws as well as the successes, otherwise it will read like an RTD fan page and never be taken seriously.

Re-ordering
I think it's a bit odd to have Queer as Folk, Second Coming then Doctor Who then Casanova and Mine All Mine. Surely it would make far greater sense to do the ordering chronologically, with a small future work section after Doctor Who? HornetMike 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interracial Coupling Theme
In the course of Dr. Who, we see a lot of interracial couples. Besides the obvious examples of Mickey and Rose, and the (debatable) flirtations between the Doctor and Martha, there have also been a number of smaller instances (e.g. Catherine Tate's engagement in "The Runaway Bride", Martha's father in season 3, "The Attack of the Graske" short). Is this theme of interracial romance present in his earlier work? -- 24.126.136.115 09:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sightings
I swear I saw him today in Swansea, boarding a train heading towards Manchester (presumably he would get off at Cardiff). He was wearing a black suit and mirrored black sunglasses, and he had no-one with him. It took me twenty minutes to verify who he was and decide not to bug him. Good thing, too - before I got off the train at my hometown of Neath, it looked like he'd fallen asleep. Interesting. Anyone else ever seen the man in public?
 * Yes, I once saw the man himself in a Greggs baker in Devon. He was arguing with staff about a pasty he had just bought and was apparently unsatisfactory. The girl behind the counter looked like she was going to cry when Davies said he was going to get her sacked :-(
 * I never thought I'd see him effing and blinding like that but apparently he has an awful temper. I've heard that among his friends his legendary temper tantrums are lovingly referred to as "holocausts".

Datestamp to force archiving: 14:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Photograph
The photograph on this page is very odd. It is not of Davies, and refers to some evidently "in joke" to which most readers are not privy. Rachel Pearce 10:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's completely baffling. Pawnkingthree 11:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only other contributions of the person who added the photo appear to be writing nonsense on this talk page, so I've decided to remove it. Pawnkingthree 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm offended that you think I'm talking nonsense. The photo is of the reaction on set to a joke Davies made concerning three Japanese tourists and their inability to order fish and chips. It was a rip-roaring success as I think you can see that in the picture. I think it's an appropriate photo as it reflects Russ's personality rather than his physical appearance. Which, I think, as a writer, he would appreciate as his craft lies in his imagination living through the works of fine actors such as Tennant and Piper. This is why I added the picture, it's a true representation of T Dawg, as I like to think of him, and anything else would be a false idol.--EGGBORT (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice of you to say but this is a wikipeda page not a fanpage so physical appearance is more appropriate. It is not meant to show a picture the person would appreciate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.15.115 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Groundbreaking?
This is one of those words that is so often misused and really is just a matter of opinion. To this day I cannot personally see how QAF is considered "groundbreaking" as we had already seen similar themes in other programmes, particularly the two Channel 4 "Tales Of The City" serials that were made before it.79.66.29.159 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Real world
Our accounts of TV productions in the context of a biography such as this should avoid in-universe language. Davies is a real person and he works with actors, not (except when he's writing) fictional characters. For "his second Doctor, David Tennant" we should write "his starring actor, David Tennant" and so on, and we should be avoiding anything more than the most cursory description of the subject matter. A characterization of the Torchwood organization and its operations is unnecessary--the Davies quote itself gives a very good feel for the kind of programme it is. --Jenny 20:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Writers Tale
I think the information on The Writer's Tale would be better off in its own article. It's in danger of overwhelming this one. Thoughts? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A slightly late reply, but this seems like a good idea to me. It's also more-or-less entirely duplicated in the Benjamin Cook article; splitting it into its own article would cut both articles down considerably. Terraxos (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there enough notability for the book to have it's own article? -- Lemming64 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the number of reviews of the book quoted in the article establish notability. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick read of WP:BK had me not so sure, but that is why I am asking really. Maybe there is. -- Lemming64 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Which Andrew Smith?
The entry under "Domestic Partner(s)" in the infobox reads Andrew Smith, but that page is a disambig. Which Andrew Smith should it point to? Rob T Firefly (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of them. His boyfriend is a rather unremarkable HMRC clerk from Hull. Sceptre (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did the Section on The Controversial Nature of His Writing Go?
There used to be a section on controversies. I know it borders on non NPOV but if there are significant criticisms and controversies of his work, which I was led to believe there are, there should be a section about it. I hope it's been deleted for a good reason, not some person with an agenda of their own getting in the way of wikipedia's policies. I'd be grateful for an explanation and/or help resinstating it.

Here are some links:

Daily Star - "Hitler would be top Time Lord" http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/24692/Hitler-would-be-top-Timelord/Hitler-would-be-top-TimelordHitler-would-be-top-TimelordHitler-would-be-top-TimelordHitler-would-be-top-TimelordHitler-would-be-top-Timelord

This refers to a remark he made about Hitler being stern and strong like the Doctor, and then the article goes into detail about other controversies about the writer.

The Guardian also ran an article about controversies regarding his writing:

"Amy Winehouse Would Be a Great Doctor" http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/07/television.bbc

I think adding the criticisms section back in might be a good idea for balance sake - bearing in mind that coverage of any criticisms must include all different kinds and come from all different kinds of reliable sources. If anyone is with me on this I'll have a go at re-writing the section. At the risk of going off-topic I might add that the wikipedia article on Stephen Moffat (who took over from Davies as head writer and executive producer of Doctor Who) also does not have a criticism section. —Preceding signed comment added by catherinespark (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversial, I should say! His obsession with his gayness permeates everything he writes. The majority of viewers I would suggest do not want a gayfest every Saturday evening thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.8.54 (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit
I've completed a copy edit of this article. I've also left suggestions in comments to be looked at. Overall, the article is well-written and very easy to read through; however, I would like to make a few notes, some which may have more to do with the FAC than with style or grammar.


 * I found a very large occurrence of colon-semicolon enumerations (e.g.: I have three apples: a green one; a red one; and a rotten one). While they can definitely show a heightened writing style, excess can be just as detrimental. I would recommend reducing the amount, specifically the shorter enumerations, by rephrasing the sentences to allow enumerations with commas.
 * While British English allows 12- and 24-hour times to be displayed (it's more of a preference than anything), 12-hour times must have a space between the 0:00 and am/pm. (2:00 pm, for example.)
 * There was one occurrence of a fully-capitalised word (THE). I'm not sure if this was meant for emphasis, but it's not appropriate for an article. Bold or italics are recommended for emphasis, but even then, it should be avoided altogether.
 * Reducing the size of several paragraphs will probably be a very well-supported move at FAC. As a writer myself, I know how hard it is to remove information, but detail should be kept at a fair minimum. Specifically, detailed plot information, the person's personal opinions or ways of doing things (in this case, the "Writing style" section; this, of course, should still be somewhat kept), and too much of whatever is not notable should be affected by this.
 * The production credits table takes a bit too much space width-wise. Take a look at a similarly-purposed table to see the recommended width.

That's about it. Thanks for requesting a copy edit. If ever you need another copy edit, whether the nominators request it or you do, feel free to contact the Guild of Copy Editors again, or me at my talk page. Good luck on the FAC, and I hope this makes the cut! Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Eric. It's much appreciated. On the third point, I think I accidentally left caps-lock on. Going to look at points #1 and #4. Sceptre (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. All the best. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)