Talk:Flatline (Doctor Who)

Story 250

Requesting reasons for not being able to add the fact that it's the 250th story of Doctor Who, an important milestone, where The War Games, The Stones of Blood, Silver Nemesis and Planet of the Dead already have. And "needs a source" is not an answer, due to the fact that right at the top of the infobox, it says "250". Without a source. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it is notable needs a source, not the fact that it is the 250th story; we can count. There is no reason to emphasize it in the body unless you can cite a third party that says the number 250 is notable. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you'll be removing the noting of stories 50, 100, 150 and 200 from their respective episodes? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Although, probably not the 200th because they did make a big deal out of that one (Planet of the Dead#200th story). DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It being a quarter of a thousand, and an anniversary / production number that's often celebrated in diverse contexts isn't enough for you, then? Do we need a citation for people breathing air next? And do we really need a reason for stating a fact like that on a page dedicated to relating facts, whether it's 250, 251, or 237? As someone else has noted below, you maybe need to take a read of WP:BLUE. 146.90.85.13 (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

'Siege Mode'

The plot summary says the Doctor enables Siege Mode to get out of the path of a train. This is not the case - he walks the TARDIS out of the path of the train, and the Siege Mode later activates when the TARDIS resembles the Pandorica (the 'Gallifreyan Cube' as someone called it). I think this should be corrected. GavSalkeld (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Addams family thing in the end is minimal to the plot - the Seige mode is what the doctor does when - after thinking the TARDIS is clear - it wobbles back onto the track and that's his last option. For all purposes, he puts the TARDIS in Seige mode (likely disabling the chameleon circuit) to prevent it from being damaged by the train. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not OR

A sentence I recently added:

The pre-credits scene slowly reveals an Anamorphic projection of a Boneless' victim's face, recalling the skull in Holbein's The Ambassadors.

Has twice been removed as "OR". This is poppycock.

The clause "The pre-credits scene slowly reveals an Anamorphic projection of a Boneless' victim's face" is a bare description of what is shown on screen. It is no different to saying "the TARDIS has shrunk", "Clara poses as "Doctor Oswald" or "the episode concludes with Missy, seated in a darkened room, watching Clara's adventure" - all of which are still in the article. The essay WP:BLUE is pertinent.

The remainder of the sentence, "recalling the skull in Holbein's The Ambassadors" is also not OR, because any head or face seen in Anamorphic projection recalls that in The Ambassadors, which any art historian will tell you is the first and best known example of such. That clause serves to act as an example for any reader not familiar with the term and wanting to know what it means.

"OR" would be an additional sentence saying something like "Jamie Mathieson included this because it's one of his favourite paintings".

The sentence should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that the projection is immediately tied to Hoblein's work. (Even our article on Anamorphosis doesn't really make this statement, just that it's common in his works). We can leave that Anamorphosis is used, but to pick any example is begging original research if it is connected. Now perhaps the director wanted that to be the example that came to mind and states that in an interview, then we can make that connection, but not before. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

State where exactly it says that the projection is immediately tied to Hoblein's work. If you can't, then it's you making the assumption. If you can, then cite it. DonQuixote (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Strawman. My text makes no such claim. Do read what I wrote above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making the specific claim that anamorphosis is immediately tied to The Ambassadors. That might be an obvious claim to an art historian, but we are Doctor Who fans and I can tell you that claim is not obvious, even when I read both the articles about the technique and the painting; its clear it is the same technique (we can call it out as anamorphsis) but it is not at all clear to the average reader that this is specifically tied to the painting, nor is it necessary to make that point as it adds nothing to the narrative. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm making no "immediate claim" that anything is "tied" to anything alse; I'm stating that the use of an amaourphous head recalls the skull in The Ambassadors. Even then, your objection does not explain the removal of the statement that the scene slowly reveals an Anamorphic projection of a Boneless' victim's face. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're the only one who recalled The Ambassadors when watching the scene. That's your personal observation. Unless you can cite a specific mention of the painting in the episode, or cite a secondary source that mentions a similar recollection, then it's original research. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable"--that is, someone other than an editor has to recall the painting when watching the scene. DonQuixote (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How about we approach this dispute from a different angle - instead of keep / delete, how about re-wording it? It is still a similar effect to The Ambassadors, and may well have been meant as a reference to it. So... "reminiscent of", instead of "recalling"? Something like that? It's still a valid parallel to draw, we maybe just need to change the emphasis being placed upon it. 146.90.85.13 (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewording it won't make it any less original research since you're the only one seeing the connection. DonQuixote (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why was the Ambassadors comparison removed when the following comparison was allowed to stay: "The further-miniaturised TARDIS in "siege mode" resembles the Pandorica..." Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Because one of them didn't cite a secondary source while one of them does. See WP:OR. DonQuixote (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's your secondary source for the Holbein/Flatline connection: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-10-18/flatline--doctor-whos-250th-story-is-an-outstanding-gritty-tribute-to-banksy

Specifically, the reviewer says "surely a homage to the hidden skull on Holbein’s Ambassadors in the National Gallery". Since this is no longer WP:OR, I'll add the comparison back - this time, with the reference. Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)