Talk:Face the Raven

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maisie Williams' character

It's unsourced what name Maisie Williams' character will be going by, so do not put in any kind of name into the cast list, please.Theoosmond (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source has mentioned the character being called Ashildr, so just leave it saying Ashildr next to Maisie Williams' name.Theoosmond (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Oswald

Peter Capaldi has confirmed that Clara will depart in "Face the Raven"[1], so it should be noted. 5.65.166.226 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more plausible to wait for the episode to air, given that it is sourced that Jenna is appearing in "Hell Bent". Alex|The|Whovian 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if Jenna appears as a fantasy or something like Adric in "Time-Flight". BlueBlue11 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delorean/Star Wars poster

At the start of the scene where Clara convinces Rigsy to give her the tattoo is a poster with Aurebesh characters on it. Some of the poster is obscured by other posters, but the visible letters spell "delorean d". I don't know if it's worth adding to the main page, but it seems to fit in the "Outside references" section. Tm14 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A third-party source is required for its notability. Alex|The|Whovian 23:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one source: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-11-23/back-to-the-future-and-star-wars-meet-in-the-greatest-doctor-who-easter-egg-of-all-time Tm14 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A character dangling from the Tardis is not continuity.

It does not matter if a reviewer or two was reminded of a previous scene here. This isn't continuity and there is no evidence it was intended as a callback. The sources do not meet an acceptable standard in this instance as reliable information. There is no way this inclusion meets guidelines. Furthermore, the "sources" are weaselly worded at best. One refers to the seen as a "callback" while the other simply says the scene "recalls" the other. A scene being similar or reminding you of something is NOT continuity. A case could be argued for trivia of some kind, but certainly not continuity, not unless there is some form of clear continuity line made within the show itself, or sourced by someone working on the show.

Please learn to sign your posts with ~~~~. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 02:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the topic. A character hanging out of the Tardis is not Continuity, and the sources do not specify that it is. Something being reminiscent of something else does not make something a form of continuity, no matter who observes it.

I ask again: Please learn to sign your posts with ~~~~. All posts must be signed by the contributing editor. That we, we know who we are walking to. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian 02:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I ask again, please address the topic rather that argue in the comments section of the page history. You're just inciting an edit war when you ignore the topic here but take the discussion there.

I ask again: Please learn to sign your posts with ~~~~. All posts must be signed by the contributing editor. That we, we know who we are walking to. Thank you. I'll answer once you learn how to use the discussion pages properly. I even linked you to content regarding it. Alex|The|Whovian 03:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now address the topic please.Transformeddispute (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If two experts in the area of Doctor Who consider that Clara's dangling is comparable to the Doctor's (of which the two given sites are), then it is not inappropriate to include here. That's a reason why we require sources to avoid original research. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the people are experts if they don't actually make the claim that this is actual continuity.Transformeddispute (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your definition of continuity, and what standard are you using that reviewers must "claim" something is what we are calling continuity? Not all continuity is verbal, and sometimes it is subtle. It may be that this one is so subtle it ought to be placed somewhere below, as interpretation. Is that what you are trying to suggest? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be a matter of interpretation at best. It's not even clearly cited as continuity within the sources, more pointed that it is reminiscent to the viewer.Transformeddispute (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have to admit that this is a bit of trainspotting, even if it's from reliable sources. Just because something can be sourced properly doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopaedia article. Just my two bits (it was hard enough getting people to cite sources for these things). DonQuixote (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition of what constitutes "continuity" is important. I'd say the working definition is "it refers back to" another episode in a continuous way. So the "Cromer" file, "there's a precedent for that", etc., refer to specific incidents. Does Clara dangling "refer" to the Doctor dangling in Day of the Doctor? If it does, does it also, by the same logic refer to every other time someone has nearly fallen out of the TARDIS and will future similar events be said to do the same thing? If so, by what critera? I conclude that putting the two events together, when there is no verbal link, is WP:SYNTH in the absence of an explicit link being made by Moffat or someone else connected to the show. I vote we remove it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also strongly in favour of avoiding this sort of trivia, whether a source has pointed them out or not. It is not continuity, it is not encyclopedic: it is just obsessive cataloguing. We had a debate on this sort of thing last year though it wasn't particularly productive incidentally. Continuity sections should be used to point out things that progress from one episode to another, broadly, rather than things that are a bit similar. Mezigue (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we have several opinions against inclusion then? If so, at what point is it acceptable to remove the information?Transformeddispute (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we've had a pretty good and productive discussion and consensus has been broadly achieved, no further arguments have made against removal, so I've removed it. Forgot to say why when I actually did so, hopefully this discussion will be seen so no-one reverts it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that bit in the lede

Please note that I do agree that per WP:SPOILER, that is completely fine to note Clara's death in the lede. But:

The "rare" part is possibly a bit of a stretch. Yes, most companions survive past their time with the Doctor, but others have clearly died before.
In terms of the narrative and in light of "Hell Bent", while she "died" as a fixed point in time, in terms of the actual out-of-universe view, she's clearly still "alive". It is a sticky point that it might be best to leave out of the lede because it is difficult to clarify. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo?

Did anyone else notice that the first time the raven took a life Ashildr's neck tattoo was integral (?) and the second time it wasn't? Is this a continuity error? Curious. 2601:549:4203:2F70:9DEB:67BB:C85C:D95D (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no it was international as shown by the script where ashidr pints out that the tattoo is not doing anything as Clara cut her out off the deal with the Raven when she took on the death sentence 2.103.93.46 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/scripts/DW9-EP10-Face-the-Raven.pdf 2.103.93.46 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the tattoo doesn't disappear after the chronolock is passed. The tattoo doesn't (suddenly) vanish when "the new deal" is struck. The tattoo doesn't even fade after Ashildr is informed of "the new deal." Does Ashildr have _that_ tattoo forever now? Does it have anything to do with the quantum shade anymore?

My question arose from the _filmed_ scenes, where you cite _unfilmed_ portions:

The first occurrence in the (partially unfilmed) script:

"At that moment, ASHILDR feels a surge of energy as her contract with the Shade comes to fruition. Her tattoo comes to life, curling around itself before scorching out of her skin in a small plume of black smoke, leaving her neck bare."

The second occurrence in the (partially unfilmed) script:

"Ashildr: I made a contract with the Shade when I put the chronolock on Rigsy. I promised it a soul and only I can break that contract. When you took it from him, you changed the terms. Look - ASHILDR shows her tattoo. It remains dull and motionless."

The unfilmed portions explain things in greater detail and generally make for a more complete story. It's a shame that I just read that script actually. The unfilmed script is a better story than the filmed episode. 2601:549:4203:2F70:3953:A6EC:B6A4:B31B (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]