Talk:The Stolen Earth

Article length issues
This article is currently 92KB long, well beyond the recommended size for Wikipedia articles - see WP:Article size, which states that any article over 60KB should probably be split unless it covers a particularly broad or wide-ranging topic (which is obviously not the case here; this article is about a single episode). Normally in such circumstances the best approach would be to split the article into smaller sub-articles which would be easier to read and edit, but in this case there don't seem to be any reasonable candidates for spin-off articles. Instead, this article simply should be cut down to a more manageable size. In particular, I would say the 'analysis' and 'reception' sections are excessively long at the moment, and read more like a collection of every single review the episode received than a balanced summary of its impact, which is what they ought to be. Is anyone willing to take on this task and get this article up to the standards that, as a featured article, it really should meet? Terraxos (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I say we don't have to do anything, as like you say, this is a featured article (which has no requirements regarding article length). Also, WP:SIZE is a guideline, which is advisory, not mandatory. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though it is 92kb, there are 139 featured articles longer than this. There really is no "maximum size" for an article (indeed, Iraq War, even as a summary article, is three times longer than this, though I understand that's a bit trivialising), especially a featured article, and I don't think the reader will get tired of reading it; there's enough breaks in the text (blockquotes, images, headers) to allow the reader to pause for a second, and continue; hell, I did that deliberately so I wouldn't get bored from checking the article for typoes, et cetera. Sceptre (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering why a huge section in this article (and others from the series) is devoted to Walker's analysis. This seems incredibly excessive when other critics are given mere passing notice.

Hal 10000.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Walker is a known DW analyst. That, and his review/etc is five-to-seven times longer than most reviews, which warrants more discussion about his viewpoint. Sceptre (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but the article is about the episode, not about Walker. That section is something much more appropriate to a fan site than to a universal encyclopedia. The Monsters Within analysis alone is 15 kb, larger than the critical analysis sections Wikipedia has for major literary and film classics of the English language. Is the Stolen Earth of greater cultural significance than Moby Dick? Or Hamlet? Or Ciizen Kane? Or anything else you care to nominate?

I would suggest that the entire "Reception" section be severely reduced in size to be more compliant with wikipedia standards and the rest of the DW episode articles within wikipedia. Other sections need to be trimmed as well, but that stands out.

Hal 10000.0 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You try to summarise the seven-page analysis in two pages, without short changing, then. He simply gets more coverage because of his status and how thorough his reviews are. Sceptre (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FA? Fuck off more like - if you think I'm going to read all that!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is quite enough. No one is forcing you to read the entire article. The Stolen Earth on Wikia is even longer; and that one only deals with the plot. — Edokter • Talk  • 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've sliced a healthy chunk off of this article and removed the chronic overlinking. If anyone feels it absolutely needs more details then please add what you think is missing, but the previous edits were horrid. Wtbe7560 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that most of the content of this page has been reviewed at FA, its very unlikely that there is "chronic overlinking" which would have been criticized there. Further, the style that you change the plot summary to (and indeed, across most of the other new DW episodes) is not really the way we write plot summaries on WP. We need to stay out of universe and that means, as in this episode where there are lots of callbacks to previous episodes, we need to link back to them appropriately to help the reader. --M ASEM (t) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also to note: WP:BRD - after you were reverted, you shouldn't have re-reverted to your preferred version, instead starting this talk page discussion first. --M ASEM (t) 14:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the overlinking. It's not necessary to link the names of the main characters in the article when they are all listed in the sidebar that accompanies the article. The grammar in these articles is atrocious, I've removed sentences with as many as five commas. I am shocked that this was FA when it looks like this. However, I defer to the rest of you that seem to feel that this article is perfect. Wtbe7560 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article as Spoiler
I thought this was a science fiction novel or short story when I clicked on the title, only to discover a photo with a caption about a dying Doctor Who. Thanks for the spoiler. Whose bright idea was it to make a featured article out of a finale and then place it on this wiki's front page?! tharsaile (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was first broadcast more than five years ago, so it's not like we were spoiling an unbroadcast episode. Please see WP:SPOILER. Regarding featured articles (FAs): the criteria for these are strict, but once FA status has been attained, almost every such article is allowed one day as "Today's Featured Article" (TFA). That particular one was chosen partly because 23 November 2013 was the 50th anniversary of the very first episode of Doctor Who, but also because it was one of only two Doctor Who articles that have attained FA status that had not yet been TFA.
 * Kylie Minogue: 27 April 2005
 * Doctor Who missing episodes: 23 November 2008
 * Sydney Newman: 14 June 2010
 * Doomsday (Doctor Who): 8 July 2011
 * Russell T Davies: 27 April 2013
 * The Stolen Earth: 23 November 2013
 * Partners in Crime (Doctor Who): —
 * The choice is made at WP:TFA/R, and the actual decision was . -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Stolen Earth. 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/20080705081459/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2008/07/doctor-who-412-the-stolen-earth/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2008/07/doctor-who-412-the-stolen-earth/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Stolen Earth. 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/20160306223558/http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/dr86vx/doctor-who--series-9---1-the-magicians-apprentice to http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/dr86vx/doctor-who--series-9---1-the-magicians-apprentice
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605050231/http://blogcritics.org/video/article/tv-review-doctor-who-the-stolen/ to http://blogcritics.org/video/article/tv-review-doctor-who-the-stolen/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

much to long
I see this has been discussed (and put down) previously, but after reading or merely scrolling to find relevant information, I still this is much too much. Especially the intro does not give a short summary as it should, but extensively discusses minor details which are repeated anyway further down. A synopsis should be short, not two screens to scroll down just to reach the content overview. 47.71.37.46 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Article Linked
Pickup shots for the edited ending of "Journey's End" were filmed alongside filming of "The Next Doctor", in the TARDIS set at Upper Boat Studios on 1 May 2008.

Here's a direct quote, so you can just Ctrl-F this. When you hover over Journey's End, it links you to a play of the same name, not the Doctor Who episode. Could someone please fix this? Thanks, 61.69.244.225 (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ DonQuixote (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)