Talk:Cold War (Doctor Who)

Continuity

Since there isn't a whole lot and it's integrated into the plot section, can we just have it all there? For example, "Flesh and Stone" or "The Fires of Pompeii". A continuity section is not a necessity (indeed, it is unique and generous of this project, as it would be considered trivia elsewhere) and is best when integrated with writing details, etc. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My motives for including it was consistency with other articles. When there's a section like this in most articles, people may specifically try to find this information here and assume that because there is no section, there are no connections with other episodes. They may not think to look in other sections for this information. A case in point is that the editor who added it before me didn't realise it was in another section until after they made their edit. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, but the Doctor Who MOS states, "if possible, try to limit the extent of these sections by incorporating the text into other sections and limiting inclusion of continuity points to matters discussed by sources, preferably secondary ones; the existence of these sections often encourage unexperienced editors to include unsourced information or original research." Glimmer721 ^talk 00:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ultravox in 1974?

When the professor referenced to Ultravox, I don't believe that the year changed underwater... especially when they were named Tiger Lilly at that stage in history.

not complaining, just humour within his humour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.20.28 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Where've you got the idea this episode was set in 1974, hopefully not from the article? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Retracted Discovered that it was set in 84 after the groups reformation 115.166.20.28 (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Skaldak wearing wrong type of armor

All the Ice Warrior episodes from the original series show that officers and soldiers do not wear the same armor but that armor Skaldak was wearing was clearly soldier armor not officer armor. 98.16.161.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Check out the original story "The Ice Warriors" to see how wrong you are, from "The Seeds of Death" the Ice Lords were introduced who had a sleeker design, but the original Ice Warrior leader Vaarga did not.81.111.126.82 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Skaldak could not have successfully launched

Even today, you don't launch a sub-based ICBM from 700 meters down...and certainly not in the 80s. Those missiles are ejected from the launch tube by compressed steam...the main engine doesn't ignite until after the missile's breached the surface, so you have to be somewhat close...and 700 meters is not "somewhat close". In addition, the pressure 700 meters down would crush the missile the moment the launch tube was opened...they're not designed for those pressures. (hell...700 meters is close to crush depth for SUBS of the era...it's close for a MODERN sub) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.247.231 (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cold War (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this one a review shortly. I remember watching this one when it was first broadcast - I was quite surprised that David Warner's role wasn't more prominent (but that expectation was based on his two memorable Star Trek roles). Miyagawa (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Just realised I hadn't done this. Reviewing right now. Miyagawa (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• No duplicate or dab links. All external links check out.

• Lead: Does the Dr Who project include a brief line in the lead about what the show is as standard? I've noticed them on other series and I have something similar in my Star Trek episode articles. I think something along the lines of "The show follows the adventures of the Doctor, a time travelling alien. In this episode..." (of course tweak it as suited).
  • I'm not against the idea, but I sort of feel like "alien time traveller the Doctor and his companion..." covers it. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's fine actually. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Plot: In my opinion the plot is a bit long. I think if it was reduced down to something the length of the first four paragraphs it would be better.

  Also, it would be better to include the actors names for those characters in brackets (as you have in the lead) for their first mention. For Skaldak, I'd suggest the same as I did for "Skin of Evil" in the lead for Armus.

• Production: Was there any information about the submarine set? Just curious if they built the set (it was impressive) or used a set previously used for something else (just because I know that Enterprise did that for the episode "North Star" where they used the old Western sets at Paramount instead of building new ones).

  Not from the sources I have (I'll add something if it shows up on the DVD); from the online mini-Confidential it just seemed like it was a set they had built in the studio. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Well it was a very impressive set. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  Nitpick - I'd put a paragraph break in the third paragraph before "Unlike some other returning monsters, the Ice Warriors were not heavily redesigned." - that'll make the two new paragraphs roughly the same size as the first two.

  Done, that looks better. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Broadcast and reception: Were the ratings higher or lower than other episodes during the previous week or shortly afterwards?

  I typically don't include this, but "The Rings of Akhaten" was watched by 7.45 and "Cold War" was watched by 7.37, which isn't that notable of a jump as, say, between this and the next week. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree, that isn't enough of a change to worry about. Miyagawa (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, although I'll have a prose run through once those bits are cleared up. I remember enjoying the episode as I always thought a naval ship would be a good setting - although I was expecting Sea Devils! Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what redesigned Sea Devils would look like...anyway, I'm going to work on the plot later. I don't think I've looked at it too closely, and it's certainly a simple episode. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I restructured the paragraphs and added the actor names, though I'm not sure if I cut a lot out. Let me know if you have more suggestions. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, that's better. I think this one now meets the GA criteria. Nice one. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Impressed by HADS reference

As I recall, the Hostile Action Displacement System was first introduced in a (licensed but non-canonical) Doctor Who tabletop roleplaying game sometime in the 80's. I'd never heard it was being considered for mention in the series itself. 107.9.45.143 (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The HADS first appeared in The Krotons. DonQuixote (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well spotted, my memory is crap these days. 107.9.45.143 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cold War (Doctor Who). 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/20130413205025/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/13/review-of-doctor-who-cold-war/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/13/review-of-doctor-who-cold-war/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)