Jump to content

Talk:The Snowmen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

French page is full of unsourced things

The French page for this article is titled The Snowman and is full of other unsourced things. A user who is on both versions of Wikipedia is adding this stuff despite being told repeatedly to find a reliable source. If anyone knows French can you please rename that article so it's not The Snowman, and also try to get the French version of that user to behave. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Snowman_%28Doctor_Who%29&action=history Thank you. 70.238.126.231 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've just started studying French, but I've done my best. Glimmer721 talk 16:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Length of review quotes

The extracts from the Assignment X and Telegraph reviews see unduly long - or is it just me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, especially the quote from the very minor website Assignment X. Both as well as the quote from The Independent need reduction. If the reviews are generally positive, the article should reflect that, and should give more weight to major media. --Drmargi (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll work on this in the upcoming days...and I'm not even sure about Assingment X; it sounds like a rant rather than a critical analysis. Glimmer721 talk 16:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It was originally part of Dean Devlin's Electric Entertainment, but he sold it a couple years ago. It's a generally badly written, very minor website. I'm going to remove it altogether. There are better and more well-regarded American scifi websites with balanced reviews. I'd also suggest a look at the very well-written review in the LA Times. Also of concern: the section states reviews are generally positive, which is fair from my reading, but the quotes are largely negative. --Drmargi (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Cast List

moved from my talk page

http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/xmas-filming-more-returning-characters-37233.htm http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/xmas-filming-mad-as-a-hatter-37310.htm http://www.doctorwhospoilers.com/2012/?p=5979 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.94.48 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. However, we don't normally consider set reports as reliable (see WP:RS). I leave your information here and someone else may be along with a different opinion. Edgepedia (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

They were filming the Christmas special ONLY at the time of those reports. The snowmen kinda give it away. Anyway, I do consider them as reliable. They are always correct, for instance, last year when 'The Wedding of River Song' was being filmed, it was reported that River referred to Amy as 'Mother'. This was filmed before 'A Good Man Goes To War' aired, and River did infact say this in the scene that was pictured. Come back after the press release for this episode. You will be proved wrong. --86.141.94.48 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's stupid rules like this which make me avoid using Wikipedia to get information and go to the spoiler sites. Most things that are put on here are correct, but then removed because they come from a spoiler site or something. So many people waste their time updating the page with correct information only for it to be removed by admins. --86.141.94.48 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's the point. Wikipedia isn't a spoiler site. You shouldn't get your spoilers from Wikipedia. The ideal time to write about an episode is after it airs. Although, "spoilers" are allowed if reliable sources are cited. DonQuixote (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a spoiler... I'm getting really annoyed by this - look, just search articles about it from British newspapers. That should make you happy.--86.141.94.48 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This one is solid. http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/908041-doctor-who-christmas-special-photos-feature-time-lords-new-sidekick-clara --86.141.94.48 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we're asking you to do. Please do that and cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/s7/doctor-who/i424667-8/doctor-who-christmas-special-on-set-pictures-neve-mcintosh-as-madame-vastra-the-silurian.html

Will that do?--86.141.94.48 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This one is soild proof, and from a reliable source: http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/908041-doctor-who-christmas-special-photos-feature-time-lords-new-sidekick-clara --86.141.94.48 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that Eve Myles in the opening scene? I think she's intended to be the governess of the orphanage. She's not credited in the credits, but I'm pretty sure that's her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.141.102 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphan

Regarding the summary, are we sure that young Dr Simeon is an orphan ? There is someone cast as Young Walter and Walter's mother so I guess Young Walter is the young Dr Simeon. And he had a mother. Or am i wrong ? 90.47.215.41 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. The boy was definitely young Walter, and the people watching him seemed to be his parents. How were they identified in the credits? --Drmargi (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Weird, I got the impression from watching he was an orphan but on double check, that's just wrong (it's certainly not stated). Removing that... --MASEM (t) 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

I've twice removed excessive and irrelevant details from the caption of (different) infobox images; the latter removal has been reverted, The caption is not a place to shoehorn random details about the wider subject, in this case " The episode featured a revamp of the series in general, including a new theme, title sequence and companion." which are not pertinent to the image in question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll argue that both pictures (The new TARDIS and the "poster") are failing NFCC, but I suspect one, the TARDIS, can be salvaged, if there is production design information about the new TARDIS interior, which would then support its use in the infobox. But right now both are a problem and will be removed shortly if they can't be resolved. --MASEM (t) 22:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The only production info I've found is that it was designed by Michael Pickwood, but most of the reviewers commented that they liked it. There was one visual scene that was mentioned by a few reviewers: the part where Clara enters the TARDIS from the outside to the inside in one continuous shot. However, I haven't found out anything in production information about how they did that (I miss Confidential!). Glimmer721 talk 16:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
If the scene of interest is the SFX that actually makes it look like the TARDIS is larger on in the inside than out, that might be a better shot (it would be a few seconds before the current shot, so that the TARDIS sitting on the cloud would be in view, though I don't know how much of the new interior this would show, off hand. But at least from a reader and NFC standpoint, this would show the intent of the scene that was commented on by reviewers, that the viewer gets to see the impression from a character's POV of moving into the TARDIS in a continuous manner that we've never really seen before (IIRC). But if we can get more details about the new TARDIS interior (yes, alas poor Confidential, we knew ye well) then I would stay with the more internal shot. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I actually just found some comments from Moffat and added them to the article. I also found an interview about the new costume that I'll try to add later. There are quite a few more interviews I have to watch, so I'll see if they drop anything else. Glimmer721 talk 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Question (I don't have access to a digital copy) is there a shot a few seconds later than the current one of the Doctor facing Clara while showing off the TARDIS? This would also let you highlight the new outfit as well, boosting the image's usefulness. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Source for Portland Square, Bristol filming

I managed to find a source that the Who team indeed filmed in Portland Square, but the article still requires a citation to confirm that the park and Georgian buildings are what was filmed there, else the information should be deleted.--Goodsmudge (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like trainspotting to me; if nothing turns up, feel free to delete. The sentence could probably be merged with the previous to add the locations (Portland Square and Corn Street). Anyway, I was wondering (assuming it's you who added this) if the Radio Times interview with Moffat that's cited for the sentence "He also attributed the idea of a retired Doctor to a plot proposed by Douglas Adams in the 1970s, but rejected by the production team at the time" specifically mentioned that the story it was proposed for became (or rather, was supposed to be) Shada. Glimmer721 talk 03:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuity

Hi. This is my first "Talk" effort so let me know where I fail... Can something be added to the Continuity section? Something along the lines of: "Clara works as a barmaid at the "Rose and Crown" tavern. Though a very common British pub name, this is a likely reference to previous Doctor companions Rose Tyler and Donna Noble."

or is such speculation disallowed?

Thanks, Peatbog (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Speculation is discouraged. DonQuixote (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I need to read more of the guides... Peatbog (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Snowmen

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Snowmen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guardian":

  • From The Power of Three (Doctor Who): Martin, Dan (22 September 2012). "Doctor Who: The Power of Three — series 33, episode four". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 September 2012.
  • From Asylum of the Daleks: Martin, Dan (1 September 2012). "Doctor Who: Asylum of the Daleks - series 33, episode one". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Prequels

I have tried to correct the inappropriate use of "prequels" to describe the teasers, which comes from the BBC itself. Edokter has reverted this as original research but I would dispute that it is. I am sticking to the dictionary (and Wikipedia) definition of the word rather than following the BBC's clearly inaccurate use (a prequel is made and released after the main work), which can only baffle the readers of this page. Sources have to be used intelligently, not parroted! The other problem in the current version is it claims "The Battle of Demon's Run — Two Days Later" was made to promote this episode. Can it really have been, when it was released several months later, making it the only actual prequels of the three? Mezigue (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Narratively it is considered a prequel, but it was also released - officially and with the BBC using this term, rightly or otherwise - to promote "The Bells of Saint John" even though it has no narrative connection to it. Actually, based on your definition it's actually the only one of the three to be a true "prequel". I doubt the term will "baffle" any readers, though. Most don't read this page armed with a dictionary. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

DVD release

The DVD release section only referenced its inclusion in a recent set. Added detail on its original home video release. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BBCAmerica

I've watched this episode on BBCAmerica and it has some of these plot points missing. Is 60 minutes the length of the program, in total? Including commercials? If it is 60 minutes of pure Doctor Who, that means 15-18 minutes has been edited out for U.S. syndication to make space for advertising. Liz Read! Talk! 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It certainly could be - as a special, it was 1.5hr of broadtime time with ads when it ran full at first on BBCA, so they might have trimmed out points for a hr-long segment or for later synidcation where they can't run ad-free. Do you know what parts you think they were missing? --MASEM (t) 18:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I know I'm answering a 2-year-old comment but in case anyone might be curious, BBC America and Space in Canada generally do air edited-down versions of the longer episodes after their initial broadcast to fit the allotted time slot. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Snowmen/Archive_1&oldid=1233377838"