Talk:The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe/Archive 1

Proposed deletion
I removed the template, for the reasons expanded upon in the deletion discussion for the 2008 Christmas Special, which was kept as early as July 08.

The BBC have confirmed production has started and at least one other reliable source has confirmed this. It will be renamed once the title has been finalised. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Armstrong RAF pilot?
Just been removed as unsourced, but can be sourced to doctorwhotv.co.uk not sure of that site's reliability but it is used as a RS in several other Doctor Who based articles. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not confident as they name their source on everything but this. Best treat it as anything unsourced on Wikipedia.Edgepedia (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Primary source (for which doctorwhotv is the secondary) is or similar. Armstrong is in uniform as an RAF officer on set. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The specific article is here. But the actual "source" is the picture, which isn't much help. For all we know, that's a costume Armstrong's going to wear for a Halloween party. Until something more specific comes out (at least with a character name), it's going to likely stay TBA. Something reliable should come out soon though, I should think. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DoctorWhoTV has a strong editorial policy so meets our definition of a reliable source (or at least as reliable as any other newspaper articles about the special). Inclusion of the information, attributing it to the site within the "Production notes" section may be more appropriate with a TBC on the cast list. As for whether "that's a costume Armstrong's going to wear for a Halloween party", Armstrong commented that he had been filming for the special sitting in the cockpit of a Lancaster - by definition a secondary source takes two pieces of information and performs an analysis on them to come up with a conclusion - in this case, that conclusion made by DoctorWhoTV is that he is playing an RAF pilot. We cannot take those two pieces of information and analyse as that would be original research but if someone reliable has already done it then it is perfectly acceptable to note that they have done so. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

References to old series
Androzani harvester. I immediately thought of “The Caves of Androzani”… Dsalt (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The inevitable infobox image discussion
I really can't think of any scene from this episode that needs an image to understand it. Perhaps the only piece would be what an excavation walker is (thus using one of the exterior shots as Madge pilots the walker to the lighthouse), but even then, that's a stretch. I see someone has already put an image of Cyril being crowned but that's really not appropriate per NFCC#8.

Anything from sources that suggest an image to use? Otherwise I think we can go image-less here. --M ASEM (t) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess an image goes in when you write something and need an image to go with it. I've removed the screenshot as failing NFCC#8. Edgepedia (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

there's a mistake
Amy said that it was two years since he left he a message in the prequel of the episode. She didn't say it was two years since the events in The Wedding of River Song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androzaniamy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you sure about this? Amy wasn't on the TARDIS to recieve that message. Edgepedia (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on it, (and I need to see the episode again to be sure), I remember Amy complaining it has been 2 years since the Doctor left them, which happened in The God Complex. Edgepedia (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She didn't specify anything. The message in the prequel was left to no one, there is no indication that Amy somehow received it. From Amy's perspective, she last saw the Doctor marrying River Song before returning to her timeline in "The Wedding of River Song". What point in time she is returned to is unclear, so we certainly can't specify any date. U-Mos (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was assuming "The God Complex" but the actual dialogue in the episode is "Sorry, not sure how long it's been" and Amy says, "Two years!" I was considering moving that from the continuity and into the plot section so it was something like "...two years since he left them there ("The God Complex")" but as that's not specified I think we should reach concensus here first. I'm hoping an interview or even the next series will help clarify this. Glimmer721  talk  00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it could be The God Complex, seeing as Amy and Rory were returned to a time after this in "Wedding", strongly suggesting that they had been taken from a later point as well. And it was clear that they remembered the events of "Wedding" when returned to the house at the end of the episode, including seeing the Doctor post-God Complex. U-Mos (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuity
I've found (well, reused) good references for the Androzani and Forest of Cheem references, but should we include the fact that the sonic's defect with wood was first mentioned in "Silence in the Library"? It seems to have become part of the show's mythology. Also, it's mentioned in he plot that it's been 2 years for Amy and Rory--why reiterate it? Any thoughts? Thanks, Glimmer721  talk  01:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Was Silence the first reference to this? I'm pretty certain this was mentioned in the original series. In any event I know it's been mentioned several times since Silence so it's not particularly notable. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silence in the library was the first mention of this, but as it's been said repeatedly since I don't think its notable here. U-Mos (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The inevitable companion discussion
I'm saying no one was a companion in that episode until sources directly call them such. If the Doc had whisked the Ponds away in the TARDIS at the end of the ep then that would be different, but he appears to have just paid them a visit before (presumably) taking them back on his travels in series 7. U-Mos (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing; no one was really the companion. Perhaps we should put a hidden note in the infobox which will helpfully avoid people adding the Ponds or Madge or who knows else (Lilly? Cyril?) as companions. Glimmer721  talk  01:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a short note considering an editor just decided Madge was a companion. To be clear, inclusion in the titles does not automatically make someone a companion: see, for instance, the Master in The End of Time. For clarity: I would say that Amy and Rory could be companions here if, for instance, series 7 started with them polishing off their Christmas dinner and hopping into the TARDIS afterwards. But if he makes another trip to see them at a later/earlier point, then that will not make them companions here. U-Mos (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dan Martin of the Guardian implies she's a companion. Any good? Edgepedia (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a little flag of caution, you said "implies". DonQuixote (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As DonQuixote says, I don't think that's direct enough to cite changing Madge's status. Really we'd need something from the BBC or production staff, or enough secondary sources to tell us she is generally thought of as a companion. U-Mos (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the cast notes regarding this. DWM, considered the publication of record, refers to the characters as companions in its preview in issue #442 and, of notability, defines Cyril as the youngest companion ever, so I have added this information based on this (with citation). However, personally speaking, the only character in the story who actually qualifies as a true one-off companion in the same vein as, say, Lady Christina is Lily. Cyril is a "target of rescue", while Madge works independently for most of the story, placing her in the Sally Sparrow category. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just my tuppence: this discussion is by no means "inevitable". It can be easily avoided by simply stopping the practice of marking anyone as companion in the infobox. It's a completely meaningless word and the discussions resemble medieval theological arguments about angels dancing on a pin. You can all just walk away from it (and nobody dies today...) Mezigue (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And from Wikipedia's perspective, this is the attitude that we as editors should be taking. We shouldn't be discussing who is or who isn't a companion. However, at the same time, we should also be careful to reflect what reliable sources are saying,  which includes who is or isn't a companion. DonQuixote (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Madge be listed as companion as Kylie Minogue was basically as involoved as madge when kylie was in here episode and was in titles... so really madge acts as the doctors companion in this episode, as craig was even listed and not in titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.136.61 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Claire Skinner companion
Madge Arwell is the companion, my evidence being the actress' name appeared in the early credits, where the actors playing the Doctor and the companion(s) go. This has been the case for over ten years now.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 17:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cite a source that says that that's "where the actors playing the Doctor and the companion(s) go". Otherwise, it's synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, John Simm was also listed in the opening credits, so your POV argument is flawed. DonQuixote (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, any protagonist who appears in the opening credits is the actor playing the Doctor/companion.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 17:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless it's not...which goes to show that that's a circular argument. The simplest thing to do, which avoids original research, synthesis and POV, is to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But is there any evidence characters such as Astrid Peth, Adelaine Brooke and Wilfred Mott were companions. I mean, they are classified as companions in the infoboxes and were protaganists who were credited in the opening credits. I not looking for unnessary sources.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources were cited for those characters. So, if you would similarly cite a reliable source, then that would be great. DonQuixote (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)