Jump to content

Talk:Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articlePartners in Crime (Doctor Who) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
May 20, 2023Featured article reviewKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 13, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Adipose in the Doctor Who episode "Partners in Crime" were based on a stuffed toy that writer Russell T Davies owned?
Current status: Featured article

What needs doin'

[edit]

Now someone decided (without discussion, maybe...) to create the article, I'm going to sketch out a rough to-do list for it, if I may.

  • Find sources for cast... Sarah Lancashire (Miss Foster), Claudio Laurini (Miss Fosters guard), Bernard Cribbins (Wilf, Donna's Grandad), Jacqueline King (Sylvia, Donna's Mum), Steve Braham, Howard Attfield (Geoff, Donna's Dad) according to the forum; we ought to source as many as possible.
  • Picture from trailer, probably the "spark of life" frame, once we've confirmed Sarah Lancashire for this episode.
  • Synopsis/extract from Newsround (RTD says "strangest ever aliens").
  • Ensure that no start-date is added until we know the start-date!

How's that? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. DWN's guest stars are Lancashire, Verona Joseph, Chandra Ruegg, Jessica Gunning, Martin Ball, King, and Cribbins (DWM 393, page 10, "30 reasons to be excited about Series 30!")
  2. See above
  3. RTD says something about the aliens and the special effects in the same column.
  4. Only two more days to wait... Will (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3... plus Newsround - we've got plenty to go on, then! I'll get working afterwards. Point 4... so we hope! —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Notes and Production

[edit]

Is there any reason why these two sections were cut?--Wiggs (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the production information was specific to the episode, and the cast info only mentioned that they appeared in earlier episodes, which isn't realy worth mentioning. — Edokter • Talk • 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More episode articles?

[edit]

can we start on the other ones yet??? --82.21.22.241 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the next one, that'll do for starters, I reckon. Have two future episodes at any one time, maybe. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay

[edit]

The article has today been semi-d (at my request) for three days, due to the absurd amount of trivial non-info from anons. I suggest that we keep a very close eye out after that period's ended, as this is likely to get worse, not better. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with trivia? 82.29.93.118 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image argument

[edit]

OK, it's happened. I say the image stays. Any other opinions? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify why this article needs an image now? You need content to provide critical commentary on. Something this article present lacks. Matthew (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happier with a "You shout for me, gramps" image. We can discuss about their previous appearances and have a better FU claim. Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, would you care to upload one? —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, no matter what we put up here, you will remove it. Also, there is consensus to put the notice up, see WT:WHO#Lots of protection. — Edokter • Talk • 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I assume people are [generally] content with the new image? —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove any image that doesn't comply with policy -- yes. I have removed that template too. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the consensus you speak of. Nobody has even supported that suggestion (but one person -- myself -- has disagreed with it). Matthew (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (edit conflict) Can I draw people's attention to this.
  2. Can Matthew please stop simply reverting (and possibly breaking WP:3RR) and vocalise his issues. That's what talkpages are for. I'm sure that the BBC won't sue us if we spend 20 minutes discussing it first.
  3. His last edit summary said to "see the talkpage", however, he's not edited it. At all. I invite him to do so. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the latest note: the template was supported by Edokter and LA. Please don't outright lie, Edokter obviously just gave his support above and in the discussion he linked to. The image seems to comply with policy; we all agree that it does. You think that it doesn't. Please re-read consensus and post on WP:ANI (or even WP:AN3!) if you see fit. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted him, the picture is back--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good! And myself and another user have filed for protection. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)And he's done it again without discussion. I've reverted - I encourage discussion and protection. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if Matthew still wants it removed, I suggest he take it to Fair-use review. — Edokter • Talk • 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we protect? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your third point: I've edited this page twice (three times now), once at 18:17 and the second at 19:59. Secondly, I'm equally sure the article will survive for 20 minutes without the image. Matthew (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the image is back and its staying--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we come to a conclusion, a firm consensus over this, before the protection expires? See below. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware straw polls could override policy. Frankly I feel like we've been through this before (probably because we already have). But then again "All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again." Matthew (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely was not suggesting that a straw poll could override policy, and I reckon you know that and are just trying to be awkward. The definition of "straw poll" is a vote with nonbinding results. Thus, the results of this are non-binding and don't override policy. However, WP:CON is policy, BTW. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll to gauge support

[edit]

Do you support the current image, one showing Wilf and Donna, with its caption, and do you think that it is compliant with the numerous copyright, non-free content and fair use policies in force on Wikipedia?

  1. Yes. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. Passes #4 (cinema trailer counts as publication), passes #8 if we can talk about Donna's and Wilf's previous interactions with the Doctor (which is why I think this picture is better than Sarah Lancashire). Sceptre (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument reads like "WP:ILIKEIT and here's how we alter the article to justify its inclusion". Besides, this image is not indispensible in stating how this character is important in this episode, which appears to be your NFCC #8 rationale. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. WP:NFCC#1 requires that the media be irreplaceable with prose; the characters presented are engaged in nothing that cannot be described otherwise, being "representative of the episode's plot as a whole" is a purpose best accomplished by a description of such. WP:NFCC#3a requires the media be used only if necessary; such necessity has not been established. WP:NFCC#8 requires that the media "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [and have] its omission [...] be detrimental to that understanding;" I understand the article Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) well w/o the two caucasoids and their hats; sans the image, the article conveys exactly the same information. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes. i think it passes NFCC #4 and #8--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes Passes NFCC with regards to promotional material (#4 & #8). — Edokter • Talk • 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Comment. This is a decorative usage, clearly fails NFCC #8. Can someone who believes this usage passes #8 please explain how the image "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic"? I find it hard to believe. Arguments made above for NFCC #1 & #3a are also concerns. This image should simply not be used. This matter can not be decided by voting. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NO Clearly and utterly fails NFCC #8. This random screenshot does not increase readers' understanding of the topic, which is required and cannot be ignored with a simple WP:ILIKEIT. And as Edgarde pointed out voting on this is completely useless. These kind of violations are not at all votable or ignorable. — Κaiba 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No. This is classic decorative fair use. It does NOT significantly increase our understanding of the topic in any way whatsoever. Compare and contrast the useless image here, that doesn't connect with the article at all, with the understanding that the fair use media brings to Concerto delle donne. I understand the Dr Who fans want their pretty pics, but this is not on. I also agree with Edgarde and Kaiba - a poll on this isn't really acceptable either. It's so clear-cut I can't understand why we're debating in the first place. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not clear-cut, obviously. Five users, one admin, think that it's fine, so there's obviously ambiguity. Please think about this concept. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really is clear-cut. Anyone who thinks it isn't either doesn't understand NFCC, the purpose of Wikipedia, or has watched too many Doctor Who episodes. Also, you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because one crowd think one thing, and another crowd something else, doesn't preclude one of these crowds from being completely wrong. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't, no. But it does preclude the issue being "clear". —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes It passes NFCC #8 and #4.--Wiggs (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Please explain why you think it does. How does the image add to our understanding of the topic at this moment in time? 81.99.113.232 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unexplained declaractions that the image passes NFCC have no weight here. This is not even an WP:ILIKEIT, just a wish it were so. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explaination, the screencap gives the reader a visual understanding of the episode allowing them picture what two of the charicters will look like using fair use promotional material.--Wiggs (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No clearly fails WP:NFCC#8, completely random screenshot that does not increase reader's understanding of the article. Also fails #1 and probably #3a as well, without even looking at others. Incidentally, you can't use "passes NFCC#4" as an argument for such an image, because it is quite clear from the policy that "Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." This shouldn't even be arguable, really. Since when did we have polls on clear-cut policy issues? Black Kite 10:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, obviously, as per Black Kite above. Find something analytic to say about what the image shows, then you can use it. This is the paradigm case of a purely decorative image (like on many other episode pages, of course). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this goes for the image that was originally proposed just as much as for any other equally random screencap. The randomness with which one was replaced with another ([1]) just goes to show how useless these really are. If one serves as well as the other, then none is really important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil (and in this case, irrelevant)

[edit]

Votes are bad, and regardless, this is not an issue for which a vote can be taken, any more than one can vote on whether or not an article should be NPOV—the answer is always "yes", even if a vote or discussion says "no". In this case, the vote is whether an image can be used, when it is not critical for understanding. It is not, and the concept of the episode can be conveyed by text alone, so both the Foundation's resolution and our nonfree content policies are clear, and it must be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't voting, this is polling editor's argument for and aginst inclusion. Calling it a vote is basically saying "I don't care about your arguments". — Edokter • Talk • 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand, Seraphimblade, is that your argument is perfectly logical and correct, except this passage: "the vote is whether an image can be used, when it is not critical for understanding; it is not". The last three words are clearly wrong. Who gave you the authority to say that? Who told you that you're write and the six or seven people who think that it is, are wrong? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Seraphimblade doesn't need "authority" to say that, because it is patently correct; the image is quite plainly not critical for understanding anything in the article. I find it somewhat worrying that so many editors, some experienced, can be reading such a clear policy so wrongly. Black Kite 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe, we're not editing it wrongly. Had you considered that? If it is "patently correct", then surely there should be little disagreement over it? I think that you may be wrong. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which sentence in the article would be difficult for the reader to understand if the image was removed? Black Kite 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The parts about the relationship between the Doctor, Donna and Wilf. I frankly find it disgusting that you can be so sure you're right as to say that there is no other POV. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article about that relationship. Do you want to try again? Black Kite 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is important, both Donna and her Grandfather have encountered the Doctor separately, this image explains a majority of what the episode may be about when it airs, besides last year we had an edit war over the same problem involving images please don't let this happen again this year and possibly all the years to come--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image explains what the episode "may be about"? --Bragen 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image explains what the episode may be about? What's special about using this copyrighted image to do so, as opposed to describing the same? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all the other new episode articles have pictures are you going to delete them aswell?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't mention anything about the story of the relationship between those two. Fair use images can only be used in the context of commentary of the subject. No one has provided a satisfactory rationale to meet NFCC #8, where it says that the image has to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Unless you're a Doctor Who fan, unlike myself, they wouldn't understand what that screenshot is about, or understands why it is significant. This screenshot nor the commentary tells the reader why that particular image of those people are significant to the episode. I hope you do realize that taking a single still-image from an episode of Doctor Who and putting it in the infobox of the episode doesn't meet fair use by itself. In that case, yes, if other images are being used like that, they should be removed. — Κaiba 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we should delete the others too. No Dr. Who episode article I've ever seen had a convincing reason for an image in the infobox. In fact, an image being in the infobox constitutes almost prima facie evidence it's merely decorative. If it was doing anything actually useful, people would integrate it in the text where it's discussed. I am seriously considering simply removing the field from the box template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Doctor Who articles actually used to contain non-free content in their plot sections. Why they were moved into the infobox... I don't know. I'd support the removal of the image field anyway. Matthew (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that doing so is nothing short of disruptive editing and subject to immediate stept to ensure this kind of behaviour will never happen again. Your interpretation, or any editor's for that matter, does not warrant such a drastic step without some direct decree from the foundation. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your threats are ill-advised. I also wonder, given the fact that you are obviously too much involved in these articles to take admin action (well, I do hope you are aware of that, anyway), what exactly would those "steps" be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling my advise "threats" is not helping. Any editor engaging in disruptive editing is subject to sanctioning. As an admin I am well aware of my limitiation, but there are 1300 more. AN/I would be the first step, but this could well end up at ArbCom is this issue isn't settled. Right now, I am thouroughly sick of the unworkable wording in NFCC that I am considering taking the foundation itself to task to force them to come up with wording that is not open to interpretation. I do not even care about this picture, as it is only there temporary; by the time this discussion is over, the episode has long aired. But the implications being spewed that all screenshots are going to be oblititated by a single edit, is arbitrary and simply not acceptable. That is why you are warned. — Edokter • Talk • 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I share your dissatisfaction with the Foundation's unwillingness to settle things more clearly. I doubt you could "force" them to give a more detailed guideline; I think they have repeatedly declined to do so. Likewise, Arbcom would only rule on things like wheelwarring but not on the underlying conflict, so they are no help either. So, unfortunately, we'll again be left to our own devices. Of course, you could also respond to the core of my proposal: The presence of that field in the infobox serves to promote the misunderstanding that there is a blanket allowance of one arbitrary non-free image per episode article. Which there isn't. Every image has to be individually justified; long-standing consensus (well, outside the narrow confines of the TV wikiprojects, probably) is that this can only happen in conjunction with analytical commentary in the text; infoboxes lead editors to just paste in whatever image comes to hand without such textual embedding. In the (rare, IMO) cases where an image is truly needed for analytical purposes, it can just as well be placed freely in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edokter, I suggest you stop your threats, before I make a case on your behavior. — Κaiba 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides if the image violated NFCC Betacommandbot would have removd the image long before this discussion ever happened, i belive Betacommandbot agrees with that the image should stay, unless you can claim the bot is broken--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete hogwash. BetacommandBot isn't supposed to know what images violate NFCC #8, it is programed to moniter NFCC #10 where the image has a valid rationale on the image description page. — Κaiba 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to point out that this is not so cut-and-dried because of the fact that it's from a promotional material that's edited from the actual episode, in which case, to comply with fair use, the caption should mention something to that effect as it's not readily obvious (see Dracula (1931 film) for use of promotional material). As an image depicting the episode proper (as opposed to the promotional material), it's merely decorative as it isn't really used to illustrate anything that can't be said within a sentence. Now if the image were a cast photo or an image of alien creatures or spaceships, something that can't be easily picture through words, then it'll probably fall under the category of important. DonQuixote (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to respond to the above, no one "gave" me the authority to say so. However, the Wikimedia Foundation, which does have authority which supersedes yours, mine, or even the authority of any type of consensus (which yes or no votes don't establish anyway), clearly stated that use of nonfree material must be minimal. Allowing it "by category" and using it when it is effectively a pretty for the infobox and is not essential for understanding is maximal use. No one has presented an argument that the image is critical to a reader's understanding. (Remember, just "helpful" to such understanding is not enough.) It's the same type of thing as NPOV. The Foundation has mandated that all mainspace material on every Wikimedia project must be presented in a neutral point of view, no exceptions. We could not hold a vote on whether to instead present this article from a fan's point of view—even if a strong consensus formed to do so, it would be disallowed by that requirement. The same here. Decorative nonfree images are forbidden in all cases, and consensus, polls, or anything else will not overrule that, least not unless the person voting also happens to be on the Board. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I will support Seraphimblade in any administrative measure necessary to see this through. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start Time

[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2008/03/26/53840.shtml its a confirmed 6.20 start time, I would add it but the page is locked - or so I think.--Wiggs (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adipose - pics available

[edit]

[2] If they're worth adding. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some information on the technology the mill are using which would sit in our artical nicely.--Wiggs (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they don't look intimidating, they look cute!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've put in an image. Matthew has already deleted it using his special auto-delete software :-( I replaced it and added more info about the Adipose. The image now serves this purpose: to illustrate not only the appearance of the Adipose (which is hard to describe by words alone) but also to provide visual representation of the effect created by the use of Massive software, as sourced, which is notable in being the first such software to be used on television, anywhere in the world. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still decorative and does not pass all ten criteria at WP:NFCC. In fact I believe text would be more than fine... Matthew (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, which one would it fail? And how would you adequately describe an Adipose in prose? — Edokter • Talk • 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) describe[reply]
"No free equivalent": the image can be replaced with text, which more than amply describes the adipose. "Significance": the image does not increase the reader's understanding as it merely shows what the Adipose looks like, which again can be replaced with text. Perhaps write something that would require illustration? Matthew (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely can not understand why this was deleted, it is a brilliant aid to the user to help he/she to visulise the first ever use of massive FX technology on television. I understood why Mathew wanted rid of the previous image but the resoning behind this one is simply ridiculous.--Wiggs (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is quite a ground breaking event in television. I resored the image and asked Matthew to take it to fair-use review instead if he so wishes. — Edokter • Talk • 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this image – as a reader – increases my understanding of the topic. Matthew (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, you are edit-warring. And you are not the only reader on Wikipedia. The image illustrates the result of mass-character CGI never seen before in television. Just because you don't seem to understand it, doesn't mean other won't either. Stop edit-warring and take it to fair-use review to have the image reviewed. I have told you three times already. — Edokter • Talk • 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the chance to see Matthew's description of the Adipose before the pic, and so I think I can comment on just how well it describes them: Not adequately, by any measure. I was thinking more along the lines of small balls, like beads of mercury, not like in the pic at all. If anything, Matthew, you've just proved that the Adipose can't be adequately described in text. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, I am inclined to agree with inclusion (and you guys know I'm otherwise among the most critical about episode images). If the introduction of computer-animated cute little blobs is such a notable new feature in this episode, let us see them. It really makes the coverage more informative. What I object to, much more strongly, are those items where you just see a couple of guys talking and the like. It also makes it easier to accept such images if the accompanying text is actually encyclopedic. "The technology will be used to animate the Adipose, as they are born and move around London." is a decent start for an encyclopedic treatment. "But most of all: how can they stop the onslaught of the foetus-like Adipose?" is not. Unfortunately, the Dr Who crowd has had a tendency for the style of the latter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - and since there will probably be an even better screencap come Saturday, even this arch anti fair-use editor doesn't see the point in removing this one for two days. Black Kite 06:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to all that happened in my sleep ;-) The image seems to satisfy the criteria; you can't possibly describe all that in words, otherwise the BBC would produce books and not TV! —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can add a bit more about the Adipose when I get home and get hold of my RT. Sceptre (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. As for the soap-style plot lines; I ususally remove them instantly. They ususally get added by IP editors and fans not familiar with Wikipedia policy. — Edokter • Talk • 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue with the new image either; the image here does genuinely serve a purpose that text alone cannot; so it seems to fit current common practice as to nonfree images. (Whether or not I agree with that practice is a different question, but not one that really goes here.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not convinced that it cannot be described with text alone. The CGI is paltry at best and has no detail that text couldn't describe. In fact, having watched this pathetic excuse of an episode, there are several other moments that an image could illustrate better than text (e.g. Donna and the Doctor through the telescope waving to Granddad). Matthew (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah! What a load of nonsense... the fact that you think the episode was crap (I actually thought it was one of the best) is laughably immaterial. The CGI being paltry is beside the point - CGI cannot be described by words, as we all agree ("silver blobs" doesn't do it; seriously, would they go to such expense over animation if it was un-necessary?!). "Donna and the Doctor through the telescope waving to Granddad" perfectly describes that scene, so an image is no good for it. If you have text to replace the Adipose image, fire away. But wait for a consensus to develop before adding it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I agree? No. So obviously we all don't agree. We could get into a pissing contest, but I simply don't have the time to check back often; it also doesn't help that I'm unsupported. Matthew (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion, so it was a total waste of your time thinking about it (I guess), typing it, then a waste of the 'Pedia bandwidth rendering it, and my time reading it. You know what I mean, I know what I mean, so unless you're going to respond to my points, Matt, then there's little point editing this section. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't know what you mean, and I'm unsure as to the points you speak of. My reply had a purpose, which your comment seems to lack. But I do believe you give some good advice... if misdirected, which I believe you should definitely heed. That said I do hope you won't reply and continue this discussion, and waste more of my time too. Matthew (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RTD's Critisism of time slot

[edit]

An artical has featured in Ariel magazine (http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php#newsitemEkpyyFlyVADTslRAWy) Russell T Davies criticizing the 6.20 start time, this could go in under pre-broadcast publisity.--Wiggs (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article. Sceptre (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Proclamation

[edit]

Mrs Foster mentions the Shadow Proclamation, suspecting that the Doctor and Donna are working for, or reporting to them/it. Obviously, we've heard the term before (in "Rose" and "The Christmas Invasion"), so it should probably be noted in a "Continuity" section. I'm just not sure how best to go about it, so I'll leave it to someone else. I'd guess "Shadow Proclamation" is the Series Four "code word" too, although that's Original Research of course, so we don't need to add that. :) Kelvingreen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Shadow Proclamation is the S4 codework. We know what the SP is, wheras Torchwood was revealed at the series finale and the same goes for Badwolf, the end of the series. SimpsonsFan08 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THe new DWM says that there will be no arc-words, but instead one word or event per episode, that all get collected in the final episodes. This is entirely WP:OR, but I'm gessing that, according to Wilfred Mott, Venus is in a place in the sk that is different to real life. One thing to note about the Shadow Proclamation is that in Rose, it was like a treaty or something, whereas in this, it is an actual body, like a Government. But then again, this is also WP:OR - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sense in this episode was that the SP existed as some kind of organisation, although there's no reason why it can't be both. Anyway, WP:OR aside, the fact that the SP is mentioned here is probably worth a note in a continuity section, is it not? Kelvingreen (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, with particular reference to "Rose", as Rose only really quoted it from the Doctor in "The Christmas Invasion" - Weebiloobil (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon that that mysterious exchange between the Doctor and Donna about "bees disappearing" might possibly be this episode's "culmalative element" that could lead somewhere in the finale.Blaine Coughlan (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bees disappearing is supposed to be one of the signs of global warming, isn't it? If a certain photograph taken during filming is accurate, then the vanishing bees is certainly foreshadowing of the finale, and so I suppose would end up in a Continuity section or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.224.209 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is descening into fan-crap. Lets leave it here, shall we? As a side point, someone has helpfully created the Shadow Proclamation article, which needs a bit of a look-over. I've assessed it as Stub-class, so some work would be ideal, except I'm not really sure that it deserves its own article - Weebiloobil (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Shadow Proclamation was mentioned again in episode two. We also saw another mention of Venus in relation to Donna (this time the god rather than the planet), and another "missing" planet. Perhaps someone needs to start a page on running themes in S4? Kelvingreen (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes vs Italics

[edit]

Hey Wolf_of_Fenric why have you undone my edit that quoted "Survival" and put it back so its italics? Most other episode references are of the "quoted" kind, whats the difference here? Jasonfward (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that multi-episode serials are in italics, and "single episodes" are in quotes. See Wikipedia:manual of style. — Edokter • Talk • 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Seems bizarre and meaningless (except to the few in know), but hey ho, so be it. Jasonfward (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey's surname

[edit]

Stacey was clearly called Stacey Campbell in the episode, yet in the credits she is Stacey Harris. So which should be listed in the infobox? U-Mos (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say neither; just Stacey. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've added a link to a blog which gives some reaction to the episode, to series 4 and contains alot of links and juicy screenshots.

Does anyone want a REALLY good "Adipose Industries" Logo? With the slogan underneath? I captured it from Captain Jack's Monster Fact File Video. Filthish (talk)

I quite would - upload it to ImageShack and link, maybe? Thanks! —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

[edit]

Where has this section gone? It's certainly above trivia as it attempts to assess the episode's place in Doctor Who as a whole by noting references to previous events and serials. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I was writing the article I left it out as we could easily integrate it into the plot more than most episodes. Sceptre (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to put the continuity section back to keep this page in line with the episode articles for the rest of the series otherwise it looks really out of place. It is so much more helpful too if the continuity points are carefully seperated so one doesn't have to read through the plotline of the episode to find them. Winterspell (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In "Turn Left," which shows a world without the doctor, it is implied that this whole episode took place in America (which is the reason America failed to follow through on its promise to send financial aid to Great Britain following the Titanic incident). I don't know if this is a retcon, an error, or simply a minor effect of the Doctor's absence (though this seems like a stretch), but I think it would be worth including in the article, and the only place it would fit would be the continuity section. This alone seems like sufficient reason to include such a section.98.245.168.10 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After the Titanic disaster at Christmas, and considering all the trouble Donna's family and others had to endure, I don't think many people in the UK had any disposable income for fat reduction pills. DonQuixote (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose guest star

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having Billie's credit prominent on this page is such a huge spoiler! Are there any...uh...wiki-ways around that? Andral (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I placed Rose at the top of the guest stars list because she was on the closing credits sequence directly after the Doctor and Donna. Which is ridiculous in my opinion, but I thought Wikipedia should follow it. U-Mos (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. I just hate the idea of spoilers! I suppose if people haven't seen it they probably shouldn't be on this page, but people slip up. Andral (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain I've read in the past that Wikipedia isn't supposed to care about spoiler warnings; it isn't a concern for the articles, etc etc, the main concern is just writing what's what and if you get spoiled, too bad. That sort of thing. --user.lain (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see WP:CENSOR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ratings

[edit]

The ratings section suggests that the figures are the highest for a season premiere since Rose (as cited to Outpost Gallifrey). According to this story at BBC News Online, the figures are actually slightly down on last year's. While they don't yet include those who recorded the programme, if this is usually fewer than 310,000 people, the information in the article is likely wrong. All the best, Steve T • C 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

[edit]

Can we get a reference for this statement in the lead: "in a scene that was withheld from the press." (This is talking about the scene with Rose) Thanks! Ank329 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need it. It's cited below, in "broadcast". Sceptre (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference numbering broken

[edit]

There are in the references section two point 9's and all subsequent references are then mis-numbered. Is there anything we can do about that, or is it a big in the wikipedia software and if so any ideas about how it should be reported? Jasonfward (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine to me. Sceptre (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it seems OK. Jasonfward, you must have stumbled on a hiccup by the page render; these things are all automatic, at any rate. Radagast (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still have 2 point 9's :( it must not like me. Jasonfward (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Donna's dad

[edit]

Did the actor playing Donna's dad actually die whilst being filmed for an episode? When I listened to the podcast I got the feeling they tried to rescedule filming to fit him in but he died before they had a chance to do his later scenes.--Wiggs (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, he filmed all the scenes for this episode, and was midway through shooting (probably Sontaran) when his condition got worse. Sceptre (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one said he literally died during filming, just before his scenes for the series were complete. U-Mos (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Attfield didn't do a John Ritter. Sceptre (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I know the discussion is sorted out and everything but don't you think that sounds just a little offensive really? Or at the least very flippant considering the subject matter

Yeah, I think the artical needs to be slightly reworded because its sounds like he died on set in the artical.--Wiggs (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside (but still germaine to the article as this would be worth noting in the text), has there been any talk of the late actor's scenes being included on the DVD? Since they do include deleted scenes, it would only make sense, wouldn't it? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Level pegging OR equal

[edit]

In the "writing" section of the article, there appeared to be a quote from Tate that said she regarded her character and the Doctors as "level pegging", this as been edited and changed to an unquoted "equal". Since it would appear Tate actually said "level pegging" and that is not necessarily the same as "equal" should that be reverted back to the original even if "equal" reads better? Jasonfward (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "more equal". Sceptre (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Premiere

[edit]

SciFi Channel has the fourth season listed to begin airing on April 18th. Should this be added to the broadcast section?--Drscompanion2 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in Crime airs on the 25th. (Voyage is part of the S4 rotation)Sceptre (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that usually noted after the air date then? Just wondering, I'm still kinda new to these pages.--Drscompanion2 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Pen

[edit]

The Doctor can open the deadlocked windows and the 'triple-deadlocked' computer core once he has the sonic pen? Is there any stated reason?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The windows and computer (ie, security) are probably configured to be operated by Foster's sonic pen. DonQuixote (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, Foster would not need to speak into a communicator to "deadlock the building".--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If she just fiddled with her thingy to shut down the building, the audience wouldn't understand as clearly. Lots42 (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why did the security guards shoot the doors open when she still had her pen?--Amaccormack (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic licence, most probably. But then again...I remember trying to push a door open for about five seconds before realising that I had to pull to open it. DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that there are two types of deadlock, the type that blocks all sonic devices and the type that is created by a sonic device and does the opposite.Dalek9 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Bit

[edit]

There was no mention about the black woman that the Doctor had to keep rescuing...who -was- she, by the way? I thought it was Martha Bleeding Jones for half the episode. Lots42 (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They hardly look similar, I should think she hasn't been mentioned due to the fact its a minor plot detail, if i'd written the plot I would have added her but looking at it from a reader rather then a writer perspective its not too important.--Wiggs (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, saving this woman, whoever she was, was a huge part of the episode. Lots42 (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The woman that the Doctor kept rescuing was the nosey reporter in the beginning of the episode, the one who kept asking all the difficult questions when Mrs. Foster was having her press conference. Not really a major plot point.--Drscompanion2 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I politely disagree. As you say, the Doctor kept rescuing her. Very important. Lots42 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant in terms of providing context to the real-world information in this article, which is what the plot section is for, after all. Steve T • C 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??? The plot section is for the plot. A woman the doctor spends twenty minutes trying to rescue is an important part of the plot. Lots42 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the impression that she was originally going to be the Doctor's new companion before they brought back Donna - a Radio Times article on The Fires of Pompeii alluded to a character of the same first name being the Doctor's new companion when the script was first being written. If more can be dug up on that element, I should think that would be relevant. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the same first name is all they share. Before the return of Donna was decided, RTD had in mind 'Poppy' (or was it 'Penny' - can't remember) to be the next companion. Then Donna came back, and that idea was scrapped. Simply to 'pay homage' to the original idea, this news reporter was given the same name, but it's not the same character, hence the entire thing becomes non-notable. As for "A woman the doctor spends twenty minutes trying to rescue" - you what? If i remember rightly, he didn't actually spend any time trying to rescue her - he left her tied up. TalkIslander 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The important word here is -trying-. He attempted to do something and he failed at it. Lots42 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think it was one of Marthas relatives or something (maybe tish?)Dalek9 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one of those "they all look the same to me" arguments? It wasn't a major plot point, and the Doctor didn't spend any great deal of time trying to save the nosey reporter. He merely happened to come across her a couple of times, and spent a few seconds to free her each time (though she was recaptured the first time).--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Carter. Absolutely no relation to Martha Jones. Old Marcus (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Error

[edit]

OK, I'm new to this, so please forgive me my slowness. I believe I have found a continuity error in the episode that I believe should be mentioned in this article. Can I have some advice on where in the article to put it? (I put it in once, and it was removed as "vandalism"). Basically, at 26mins 51secs into the episode, Miss Foster cuts one of the cables of the lift, but when the shot shifts to the lift itself, it's the other cable that severs. Masterflea (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable for an encyclopedia. We generally do not include goofs or continuity errors, unless they are so obvious that even the press write about it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we repeating information on this page

[edit]

I have removed the following two paragraphs [3] from this page based on a couple of things. First, the Doctor Who wikiprojects own guidelines seen here [4] state that the lead section is to be kept brief. Second, both of these paragraphs mention things that are repeated later in the article. The returning cast members is mentioned in "casting" and the use of Massive is mentioned in "Adipose". This is the proper spot for the mention of each of these items - the opening is not. Repeating information makes the pages read poorly. Also, it is not something that has been done on Doctor Who episode releated articles up until now. If the standards for our articles have changed please explain the shift in them. Also please point out where these shifts are mentioned in the Manual of Style. MarnetteD | Talk 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to get most of the articles as standard as possible - summarised lead sections, bracketed cast members, etc. Sceptre (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summarised lead sections are still to be kept brief. This one is not and this info is still repeated unnecessarily. One of the two should be removed and I would vote for the first since there proper venue is the sections below. MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Constant mentioning of actors names

[edit]

Beginning with this episode editors are adding the actors names to the plot synopsis and sometimes to other sections below this. This means that we have to read redundant info two or three times. This is not something that has been done before nor is it part of the Doctor Who wikiprojects MoS. When Sceptre reverted my removals of them his edit summaries as seen here [5] he claims that there are ongoing discussions about this at the TV project and the Doctor Who project. This is a bit misleading to say the least. Before today the only "discussion" [6] had one editor stating that they are not needed. Please note that both Treasury Tag's and my statements were added today. I have been through several pages at the television wikiproject and can find no "discussion' about it anywhere. That doesn't mean that there isn't one so, if there is, please direct me to one that "started before" today. It should also be noted that policy changes are usually discussed (though not always) before implementing new standards to the MoS. MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all... you are aware I hope that this article became a featured article in it's current form. Removing parts from the lead, which is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, could severely damage that status. So please stop removing the Adipose paragraphs from the lead. Second... putting the actor names in the article puts them into context without having to fly to the infobox every time. I don't know if the several MoS-es encourage it or not, but agressively removing them is getting dangerously close to edit warring. In any event, they do no harm... and remember, this is a featured article (can't stress that enough). — Edokter • Talk • 22:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortuantely that just goes to show that becoming a featured article does not mean all that much. Especially when the decision making is up to so few. I have seen featured articles that numerous editors have worked on lose that status when the next wave of enthusistic new editors decide to take Wikipedia in a new direction. Just pray that TTN and his allies never stray into our pages after his topic ban expires.
As to the particulars of this page the two paragraphs in the lead in question do not "summarize" items in the article. They repeat, virtually word for word, what is stated later. I can find no other lead section before or after this episodes which contain so much production detail in such a repetitive form. Next, I did not remove the Adipose paragraph"s". I removed the one that was cluttering up the lead section and left the one in the Adipose section intact.
Next, putting the actors names in the article has not been in our, or any other MoS. We have 26 classic series seasons, one TV film and 3 seasons plus 3 Xmas specials which do not list the actors in this fashion. Thus, it is not hard to see why a reader would wonder why the change happened without consensus being reached first. The edit warring has been going on from both sides and I have stopped removing them awaiting this consensus. You also did not look deeply enough to understand what I was commenting on. If the Doctor Who wikiproject decides to add them to our manual of style then so be it. But to claim that the reason for leaving them in was because their inclusion was being discussed on various talk pages flies in the face of the facts and makes it difficult to WP:AGF while being reverted.
One last point are you saying that WP:BOLD no longer applies once an article has become "featured". Does that mean that the editors that have worked on it now get to WP:OWN it and the only improvements on readability are by those who can't see its imperfections. I take as much pride in Wikipedia's Doctor Who pages as anyone and I think that everyone involved in this discussion, which has too much crankiness going on in it from all sides, including mine, is missing the point. We are all trying to make this article better. But, if you think that FA status means that it is gold now, or will stay that way forever, you are making a mistake. MarnetteD | Talk 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read through all that, Marnette, it's far too much. As Edokter said, it's featured and thus considered appropriate in its current form - so don't go changing that; WP:BOLD is part of WP:BRD, and we're on the D section at the moment.

It also looks more professional with the names and summary like that, as I pointed out at your other discussion here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the D is pretty meaningless if you can't read. MarnetteD | Talk 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Marnette. It looks and reads about as "professional" as something like TV Quick, I should hope we are aiming a bit above that level. Also, just because something has reached FA does not mean it can no longer be edited, so people like Treasury Tag should stop knee-jerk reverting. Tim! (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Sceptre can carry on fine, right?
  • If it's an FA, the community has considered that its structure meets certain guidelines; making heavy changes to its structure may, as Edokter - an admin - said above, cause it to not meet the guidelines.
  • I also made a valid point about why I have my views; as did Edokter; as did Sceptre.
  • Actually.
  • OK? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of sceptre , edokter or you should be reverting improvements. It appears so far noone agrees with your "professional looking" point so it's not that "valid" is it? Tim! (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three people agree with that point; me, Sceptre, Edokter. Two of you agree with your side; you and MarnettteeeeD. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us look at a few facts about the FA discussion. First it looks like about 13 editors made some sort of comment and of those only four editors wrote in a support vote (these could be of by an editor or two.) I know that Sceptre should be counted as a support as he was and is doing a great deal of work to improve these articles so that makes five. The programme aired April 5th and the FA discussion was closed April 20th. This is before the show had even aired in the US. Thirteen editors (some of whom may not even have seen the episode) commenting over 12 days is hardly representative of the "wikipedia community". I doubt that some of the items in question would stand up to a more rigorous scrutiny. This is a prime example of why FA status, which may look good on our stats, does not actually mean that much. Perhaps reopening the FA and announcing it on the talk pages for the Doctor Who wikiproject and the TV wikiproject might actually get some feedback that could actually turn this into a feature article that everyone could be proud of. MarnetteD | Talk 08:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Sceptre or Edokter say it looks professional? Tim! (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bracketed actors' names is a standard in TV episode FAs. See 200 (Stargate SG-1), Abyssinia, Henry, Pilot (House), Pilot (Smallville). The Simpsons and lone Futurama FAs don't, but I assume that's because one VA probably voices six different characters. Sceptre (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately two years on this repeat info is no longer as predominant in the article. Thank goodness we were able to get beyond the Featured Article status of this page so that it could become readable. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 06:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was so little need for you to come back here for one final smug comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 06:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of comment you have so assiduously avoided over the years?MarnetteD | Talk 06:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

Both this episode and 'Fires of Pompeii' were 48 minutes rather than 43. Does anyone know the reason for this, and is it worth noting the extra length in the article? 86.151.65.240 (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the production team found it difficult to cut five minutes from the episode. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Prank?

[edit]

Is it true that the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4Hqi3e5sis was an April Fools prank by the BBC? And if so, should it be mentioned somewhere on this page? -Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifieble. It looks like a poor fan-made wank anyway... eech. — Edokter • Talk • 12:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

left hanging in the air bit

[edit]

i always thought the bit were miss foster is left hanging in the air for a moment was because there was still residual tractor beam energy lingering around here and it disperserd just as she happened to look downDalek9 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's toon physics--emphasis for comedy or horror. Never seek an in-universe explanation for a dramatic event or effect when there's a perfectly obvious out-of-universe explanation. --Jenny 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why both could not be 'correct', though it's obviously for comic effect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It's the same reason why you shouldn't think of how the platforms can float in Metroid. Sceptre (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allotment

[edit]

Last word in the plot section. What's an allotment and how do you celebrate on it? Lots42 (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An allotment is a small plot of land, usually owned by the local council and rented out to home owners, that is used for growing vegetables and the like. They can include a shed as well. See Allotment (gardening) - weebiloobil (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Tool

[edit]

Just out of curiosity, what is the tool the Doctor uses when he leaves that guy's house? (the guy he asked about the adipose pills) I've never seen it in any of the other episodes, it seems to be a detector of some sort, like a compact version of the thing he had in 'Blink'? Old Marcus (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the prop designer, it's something that the Doctor cobbled together. So, it can be interpreted to mean that he built it for this episode specifically to detect Adipose related somethings. DonQuixote (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Partners in Crime (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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

URFA/2020 review and potential TFA

[edit]

I'm reviewing this article for WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review older featured articles and ensure that they still meet the featured article criteria. I reviewed this article because it hasn't appeared on the main page and I think it could be a good candidate for April 5, the 15 year anniversary of its broadcast. However, I have some concerns about the article that I hope editors can help me address, which I outline below:

  • While the article incorporates many reviews that were published at the time of its promotion, the article doesn't include more recent sources, such as [7], [8]. Should these be included in the article?
  • What is this episode's reception in relation to other episodes in the season or series? Are there "Best/Worst of" lists or retrospectives on the series/programme, episode that can be incorporated into the article?
  • Should "Donna's mime" have its own section? This seems to have been added into the article after the FAC.
  • The "Critical reception" is organised by the critic's opinion of the episode, with lots of "X said Y" statements. In WP:RECEPTION, it is recommended that reception sections be organised by theme instead. Should this section be reorganised?

I'm hoping for other's thoughts on this, and hopefully working together to bring this article to TFA. Pinging the FAC nominator @Sceptre:. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to update this to a notice, in the hopes that someone comes along who wants to fix up this article. If that is you, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Partners_in_Crime_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1208318672"