This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Partners 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | 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 |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
How's that? — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason why these two sections were cut?-- Wiggs ( talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
can we start on the other ones yet??? -- 82.21.22.241 ( talk) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
OK, it's happened. I say the image stays. Any other opinions? — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
[2] If they're worth adding. — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yeah, see WP:CENSOR. — TreasuryTag— t— c 09:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
i think it was one of Marthas relatives or something (maybe tish?) Dalek9 ( talk) 08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Penny Carter. Absolutely no relation to Martha Jones. Old Marcus ( talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 down Dalek9 ( talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Partners 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | 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 |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
How's that? — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason why these two sections were cut?-- Wiggs ( talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
can we start on the other ones yet??? -- 82.21.22.241 ( talk) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
OK, it's happened. I say the image stays. Any other opinions? — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
[2] If they're worth adding. — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yeah, see WP:CENSOR. — TreasuryTag— t— c 09:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
i think it was one of Marthas relatives or something (maybe tish?) Dalek9 ( talk) 08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Penny Carter. Absolutely no relation to Martha Jones. Old Marcus ( talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 down Dalek9 ( talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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)