This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silence in the Library 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 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It still states that it will be broadcast on 24th May. Is there any proof to back-up that as it may be prostponed due to the Eurovision song contest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.255.84 ( talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In DWA this week, it previews next issue and it says WHAT'S NEXT? with a picture of the Daleks. Can this be referenced? 91.109.107.118 ( talk) 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Groovy--the LSPlord. xxx 91.110.13.188 ( talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So, Matt has removed the image from this and Forest of the Dead with a typically terse edit-summary. What's our approach forward - do what's right or agree with him? — TreasuryTag— t— c 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm all for images in articles, did this or Forest of the Dead really need one right now? When the episodes air there might be plenty of potential images that are far more interesting informative.
86.136.156.205 (
talk)
13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia policy mandates that images cannot be decorative. Until the episode airs (or until someone reveals something huge) most images will be merely decorative. Please wait until the episode is broadcast so that any image we choose can be justified according to the new policy. If you disagree with the policy, please discuss the matter at the approriate place and not weekly in each new episode article. DonQuixote ( talk) 14:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Why hasn't the page been updated? The episode aired last saturday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.126.196 ( talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Radio Times says this two-parter is set in the 51st century - which is of course Jack Harkness and K-9's home era! Digifiend ( talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sun has printed a picture of the suit creature. I know it can't be used here, but the newspaper noted that it looks exactly like a villain from a 1969 Scooby-Doo episode! Might be worth noting that. Digifiend ( talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Now i feel it is time not only to add the synopsis but to add a picture to the article not just for decorative reasons though, since the episode has aired we can add a suitable picture to the article.-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what this was? The closest I can think of is the Vashta Nerada skeleton, but that's never named. Is there another thing that I missed, will it be something from next episode, or should we just remove the name from the article as it's not been used (yet)? -- OZ OO ( Whaddya think, sirs?) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooh! Another thing! Jason Pitt is listed in the infobox, with a TBA. He's not on the [ BBC cast list]. Anyone know who he is? I added him to the article based on DWM, so presumambly he'll be in FotD. Should we remove him? -- OZ OO ( Whaddya think, sirs?) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me if this seems to be a bit of a thick question, or if i'm missing something, but why has no one rushed to add a larger synopsis or continuity section like in all the pervious episodes? steve king 89 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Doctor asks the computer specifically to scan for humanoid life (not just human life – he is not human himself) before widening the search for all life forms. The Courtesy Drones are in fact Nodes, but the article is currently locked against editing. 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the episode aired about 16 hours ago shouldn't we unprotect the page? (I'd hate for anyone to add speculation about FotD though.) 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 10:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It was left unprotected for 23 minutes after broadcast, during which time there were loads of IPs adding in complete rubbish; it's the only way to stop the article being trashed. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"For the first time since the series returned in 2005, the programme did not win its timeslot." [1] 212.32.113.245 ( talk) 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Is info from the bbc website really relevant? It isn't really part of the episode. Instead one could mention the books that the Doctor mentions on screen (eg. Bridgit Jones, Geoffrey Archer Monty Python). -- Cameron ( T| C) 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is no mention of the drawings on the walls in the little girl's living room. One of the pictures looks like Rose with a second picture below it of a Wolf. - Jeremy 67.170.4.25 ( talk) 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In the girl's house, there's a little Robby the Robot toy (can be seen over her shoulder when she's looking at the Doctor on TV)... if there's a suitable place at some point, somebody feel free to add this in. -- umrguy 42 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but isn't the reference The French Revolution to An Unearthly Child wrong and should be to The Girl in the Fireplace? I only have seen the beginning of An unearthly child and it did seem very french revolutionny to me...I don't edit directly as I may be wrong. Someone please correct if I am right. Napy1kenobi ( talk) 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An Unearthly Child was set in the present day and 100,000BC (i.e. caveman times). The historical scenes in Fireplace were set not long before the Revolution. Digifiend ( talk) 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed, for the time being, the section on reception. The only source here seems to be some fan site (and what's more the links seem to be flaky). Let's wait for newspaper reports based on the overnights. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Moffat's first published Doctor Who fiction, the story "Continuity Errors" in Decalog 3: Consequences was also set in a planet-sized library? Daibhid C ( talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Link "Data Ghost" to "Ghost in the shell" ? Ghost in the Shell (philosophy)#Ghosts --gon 18:02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this for now because I don't recall it, so can someone please confirm that Rose called Jack's sonic blaster a "squareness gun" in " The Doctor Dances"? U-Mos ( talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason for these paragraphs to be removed, as they are both blatant and deliberate nods to previous episodes. As per the section above, Rose's coining of the term "squareness gun" can be mentioned in the former paragraph. I concede that the last sentence of the first paragraph is borderline, and it is worthy of discussion whether it can be mentioned or not (in adding it, I felt this change of opinion is notable in a section on continuity, but due to the briefness of its appearance and the circumstances surrounding it this could be seen as interpretation). But the rest must stay. U-Mos ( talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Done, although I am still curious as to why Arcayne took objection to the points in the first place. U-Mos ( talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As I noted in U-Mos' usertalk space, drawing those connections is synthesis, a part of our No Original Research policy. The reference about the doctor liking a little shop being connected to earlier instances when he has said this is synthesis, as it is us (the editor) making that connection, and not a citable, notable, reliable source. The same goes for the squareness gun reference. That something recurs in different episodes isn't really that notable. The bit on the protocol is important (notable), as it is a fairly significant plot device, and it is also referenced within the episode by the characters. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1. As shown on the BBC Doctor Who website, there are a number of books in the library that reference previous episodes. Among those seen are the operating manual for the TARDIS, Origins of the Universe (Destiny of the Daleks), The French Revolution (An Unearthly Child), the Journal of Impossible Things ("Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood"), The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (written by Douglas Adams, former Doctor Who writer and script editor), Everest in Easy Stages (The Creature from the Pit) and Black Orchid (a book first seen in the Fifth Doctor serial of the same name).
- 2. The Doctor mentions that, should Donna be left in the TARDIS alone for five hours, "emergency program one" would activate and send her home. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home.
- 3. The "squareness gun" used by River Song works in the same way as Captain Jack Harkness' "sonic blaster", seen in the first series episode "The Doctor Dances" (also written by Moffat). In that episode, Rose Tyler coined the term "squareness gun", which the Doctor re-uses here.
- 4. The psychic paper has previously summoned the Doctor to a location in "New Earth", where the Face of Boe called the Doctor to his supposed deathbed.
- 5. The Doctor also mentions that he loves "a little shop", a sentiment previously expressed in the episodes "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones".
Not only do you seem to be grossly literalising the guidelines on synthesis, you seem to not understand at all the use of a continuity section. The whole point of such a section is to take aspects of the episode that reference and mimc (or conversley, contradict) previous episodes. To take up the little shop point again, it's not "the Doctor has been helped by a shop before, yet this time the shop is a bit different" kind of thing. That WOULD be synthesis. The exact same phrase is used as in previous episodes, and the line is in the script purely as a nod to regular viewers. It doesn't really get any more continuity-worthy. And the squareness gun, it's not "ooh, it's a bit like something we've seen before", it's the same weapon used in the same way and given the same name. Again, it wouldn't have been in the episode at all if it was not for its previous appearance. Linking these events together is not synthesis, as it's the whole point of their respective appearances to do so. I'm now going to quote the other continuity points that were synthesis, and were quite rightly removed, so people can see how different their cases are:
These three points all do link to earlier events unnecessarily, the last two particularly just linking the events of this episode to similar occurences in the show's history. (The first could remain with a reference or in light of future episodes, but as it is it's just fan speculation.) These are a world apart from the two points in question, which make relevant and notable connections that were intended by the writer. U-Mos ( talk) 08:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As I see this, pointing out a previous appearance of a phrase, joke, line or technology, is fine - but claiming a direct link and an intentional back-reference by the writer isn't. Mentioning that such guns previously appeared in an episode by the same writer is shaky ground, as it implies that Moffat was linking, so to speak. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly appreciate you backing off of the dismissiveness. I will say it for a third time: consensus does not override policy, Period. If you want to change policy, you need to go elsewhere to change it; this article is not the place to attempt such. My considerations concerning this matter are supposrted by policy (and not a warping of such, as was rather uncivilly suggested). Let's take your very words Saturn:
Says who? Do you have a citation that stipulates such? No, one has not been added. Therefore , you (and the contributor who added it initially) are presenting the comparison through the lens of your own observations. The episode did not even mention Captain Jack or where the gun's naming came into existence. It is synthesis to filter that info through prior episodes. You are not citable, and neither is your observation comparing other episodes. This article is about a single episode of the Doctor Who series, and not an overview of continuity issues.
While I am sorry if you don't want to talk about the dismantling of the fancrufty continuity stuff, but every article within Wikipedia needs to follow the same rules and policies; that's wwhat makes it an encyclopedia. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Once more: we are not making any interpretations, we are merely stating fact: that these things have been seen before in the programme. This is the whole purpose of a continuity point. As long as no conclusions are drawn (eg. "This could mean that River Song is a Time Agent like Jack" at its most extreme), I cannot see how the policy prevents this sort of thing from being noted. And I belive we're really going to have to agree to disagree here. U-Mos ( talk) 09:58, 5 June 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.
I read in the article about Prof River Song that she "appeares to be bisexual". Is that implied in the episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Najhoant ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But since we can't add anything about her supposed bisexuality to the article without dripping into the eternal champagne-flute of original research, let's stop this here :-) ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Confidential episode for "Forest of the Dead" has none other than Davies and Moffat finding it significant enough to talk at length about the facts that it is the same squareness gun, and that it is the payoff to the Doctor's fondness for "little shops". It's very regular for continuity section things to be included because of a source in Confidential. Give it up, Arcayne. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 06:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You're on ANI, Arcayne. Since you've decided that policy allows you to ban me from your talkpage, I'll tell you here. Comments such as: "my (correct) interpretation of policy apparently jeopardizes the article (btw, it doesn't)" are unconstructive and incivil - if you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, then perhaps Earth isn't the right place for you. Separating this section from the main RfC is inappropriate as I'm sure you know. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
River Song is a new character, but an unusual one in that she is apparently familiar with Doctor Who and seems to know quite a lot about him.
In one addition that was removed from the article, I remarked that her reaction to Doctor Who's mention of Emergency Programme One demonstrates her familiarity with the TARDIS. I later went back and examined the scene, which is a minute or two before the cliffhanger ending and leads up to it. Doctor Who says something like "If she's alone in the TARDIS for more than five hours, Emergency Programme One will be triggered", and River Song completes his sentence for him, something like "yes, sending her home."
I think this was a valid addition to the continuity aspects of the article. For instance, in the current version (22:11 UTC, 5 June 2008) we have:
As I implied above, this is inaccurate. The following would be more accurate:
Furthermore I think it might be appropriate to produce a few paragraphs about the way in which writer Steven Moffat demonstrates River Song's apparent familiarity with The Doctor. These include her possession of a sonic screwdriver that he recognises as exactly like his own, which she claims he gave her.
Now at this stage we can't rule out subterfuge or byzantine plot twists (hence my use of the qualifier "apparent" above), but I think there is a lot we can say here which is reasonable analysis rather than synthesis. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This cannot be in the continuity section, as it simply isn't continuity. The only place it could go in this article is the synopsis, but it may be difficult to know where. My advice would be to wait, becaue River Song will probable become notable enough for her own article in the future. U-Mos ( talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To be continuity, it would have to relate to another episode of Doctor Who. While program one itself does, River Song's knowledge of the TARDIS deos not. If, for instance, in a future episode program one is used on her, the point could be mentioned in this article. But her knowledge is part of the mystery of her character, and is not relevant to any other episode. I have added a sentence where RS is first mentioned in the synopsis, and this should suffice here. U-Mos ( talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the squareness gun is already mentioned. Secondly, although her knowledge is notable (as I said, it's now in the synopsis), it is not continuity. River having knowledge of the TARDIS is not relevant to any other episode, or the show as a whole. It is relevant to her and this episode only. Just because she displays knowledge of an aspect specifically mentioned before in the series does not make it relevant to this other mention, although of course the program warrants a continuity point on its own. But the essence of the point is not that she knows emergency program one, but that she knows about the TARDIS. This is not (yet?) relevant to the continuity of Doctor Who. As I said earlier, if in the future of the show she is subjected to emergency program one it will become notable in that sense. U-Mos ( talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Gotta agree. While we agree that it's important, there's no argument about that, it's not continuity in the sense that it relates to previous episodes. It's just plot points to be resolved next time. — Trust not the Penguin ( T | C) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I would ask here first, rather than presume to edit. But amongst the things that tie this episode to the 5th series is when Professor Song is talking to Anita about "her Doctor", she says, "The Doctor in the TARDIS. Next stop, everywhere". The latter said by the 11th Doctor to Amy Pond, but more importantly, the former used by Prisoner Zero and Angel Bob. Interestingly, the Doctor appears at that moment, saying "Spoilers". Anyway, should "The Doctor in the TARDIS" be mentioned? LMB02 ( talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel something along these lines should be mentioned, but I can't figure out how it can be done without going into OR and triviality. Basically, there is an irony that RTD pushed for the latter episodes of the series to be broadcast at 7 rather than around 6:20, as he thought it would lose the show 1.5 million viewers. This led to this episode, as opposed to I'd Do Anything, competing with Britain's Got Talent on the first broadcast. This means that the episode almost certainly lost viewers by being broadcast at a later time. Is there any way this can be included in the article? U-Mos ( talk) 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that sarcasm I detect? Well there's citation for RTD wanting the show to be on later and the later episodes being put on later, and there's citation for the low ratings due to BGT. I was thinking along the lines of "ironically, this episode was only competing with BGT due to RTD's belief that an earlier broadcast time would lose the show 1.5 million views [citation]" at the end of the first "broadcast and reception" paragraph. But I understand it's treading the very fine line we like to call "OR" (don't worry, I won't use the "s" word). U-Mos ( talk) 14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
@SoWhy: The citation I meant was the one used in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), which doesn't mention I'd Do Anything, but it doesn't have to for the point to stand. Maybe just changing the first sentence to say "Due to RTD's belief that a broadcast earlier than 7 o' clock could lose DW 1.5 million viewers [citation], "Silence in the Library" was first broadcast at the same time as..." BUT upon closer inspection of this citation, we have this quote from RTD: "it will shift later on in the run, around episode five or six, which the BBC was going to do anyway." That makes this point void. Oh well. U-Mos ( talk) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's about as ironic that the first ever RTD-era episode to not be at the top in the ratings was by super-duper-praised writer Steven Moffat, especially since he's about to take over (and was praised heavily by Davies in the eighth and ninth episodes of this year's Doctor Who COnfidential). It's about as ironic that this ratings dip was for new episode number 50, a milestone. It's ironic that, after taking a week out to accommodate Eurovision, people can hardly remember to tune in to the show, when Partners in Crime did so well (as I think was originally pointed out, despite its time slot). Et cetera. There are oh so many observations like this that just don't belong in Wikipedia, as long as its NOR principle is as non-negotiable as NPOV. Apart from anything else, trying to include these things requires us either to be selective in a judgemental manner or else have a long list of them. I suppose that's why criticism, trivia etc. sections are so discouraged by the rules. (Mind you, if I'm honest, I have the same soft spot as U-Mos for these hilarious truths, which belong in Doctor Who wikis as an absolute minimum.) 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 15:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this episode aired nearly two weeks ago, can we really justify protecting the page because we're frightened silly people will still find it funny to add stupid things, so as to play pranks on people who would have had to not seen any Doctor Who in quite a while to fall for it? In my opinion, no. (I apologise if I sounded a little harsh. I'm just trying to encapsulate the reason people want such protection.) I therefore request that the page be unprotected. 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"Doctor Who website" = primary source. Cirt ( talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I just do not see this stuff as having gotten significant discussion in secondary sources not affiliated with the article's subject. It is not notable or noteworthy. Cirt ( talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see how this fact possibly violates NOR. It uses primary sources to make a wholly descriptive claim - that these two texts by Steven Moffat both contain an identical joke. It does not claim that the latter use is an explicit reference or in-joke, or give any attempt at a (synthesized) explanation - it merely notes that the same joke is used in both sources. Were the sources by different authors it could perhaps be called OR on the grounds that it implies causality, but this is two things by the same writer. Were the article claiming anything other than that the line appears in both episodes, it might be OR. But as it stands, the claim is the very definition of "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The claim is merely "A joke about being pleased at being told you have the IQ of plankton appears in both sources." That is, in fact, straightforward and descriptive. 96.39.62.90 ( talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
@ Mezigue: I noticed that you deleted some of the continuity section previously added, and thought that some of it is worth adding back. I agree that it's off topic to deeply talk about all the events mentioned, but given that they are direct references and later form important plot points, I think it's worth mentioning them. Before you delete what I've added, can we talk about exactly what is relevant and come to some consensus? Smith (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silence in the Library 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 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It still states that it will be broadcast on 24th May. Is there any proof to back-up that as it may be prostponed due to the Eurovision song contest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.255.84 ( talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In DWA this week, it previews next issue and it says WHAT'S NEXT? with a picture of the Daleks. Can this be referenced? 91.109.107.118 ( talk) 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Groovy--the LSPlord. xxx 91.110.13.188 ( talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So, Matt has removed the image from this and Forest of the Dead with a typically terse edit-summary. What's our approach forward - do what's right or agree with him? — TreasuryTag— t— c 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm all for images in articles, did this or Forest of the Dead really need one right now? When the episodes air there might be plenty of potential images that are far more interesting informative.
86.136.156.205 (
talk)
13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia policy mandates that images cannot be decorative. Until the episode airs (or until someone reveals something huge) most images will be merely decorative. Please wait until the episode is broadcast so that any image we choose can be justified according to the new policy. If you disagree with the policy, please discuss the matter at the approriate place and not weekly in each new episode article. DonQuixote ( talk) 14:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Why hasn't the page been updated? The episode aired last saturday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.126.196 ( talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Radio Times says this two-parter is set in the 51st century - which is of course Jack Harkness and K-9's home era! Digifiend ( talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sun has printed a picture of the suit creature. I know it can't be used here, but the newspaper noted that it looks exactly like a villain from a 1969 Scooby-Doo episode! Might be worth noting that. Digifiend ( talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Now i feel it is time not only to add the synopsis but to add a picture to the article not just for decorative reasons though, since the episode has aired we can add a suitable picture to the article.-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know what this was? The closest I can think of is the Vashta Nerada skeleton, but that's never named. Is there another thing that I missed, will it be something from next episode, or should we just remove the name from the article as it's not been used (yet)? -- OZ OO ( Whaddya think, sirs?) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ooh! Another thing! Jason Pitt is listed in the infobox, with a TBA. He's not on the [ BBC cast list]. Anyone know who he is? I added him to the article based on DWM, so presumambly he'll be in FotD. Should we remove him? -- OZ OO ( Whaddya think, sirs?) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me if this seems to be a bit of a thick question, or if i'm missing something, but why has no one rushed to add a larger synopsis or continuity section like in all the pervious episodes? steve king 89 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Doctor asks the computer specifically to scan for humanoid life (not just human life – he is not human himself) before widening the search for all life forms. The Courtesy Drones are in fact Nodes, but the article is currently locked against editing. 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the episode aired about 16 hours ago shouldn't we unprotect the page? (I'd hate for anyone to add speculation about FotD though.) 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 10:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It was left unprotected for 23 minutes after broadcast, during which time there were loads of IPs adding in complete rubbish; it's the only way to stop the article being trashed. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"For the first time since the series returned in 2005, the programme did not win its timeslot." [1] 212.32.113.245 ( talk) 12:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Is info from the bbc website really relevant? It isn't really part of the episode. Instead one could mention the books that the Doctor mentions on screen (eg. Bridgit Jones, Geoffrey Archer Monty Python). -- Cameron ( T| C) 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that there is no mention of the drawings on the walls in the little girl's living room. One of the pictures looks like Rose with a second picture below it of a Wolf. - Jeremy 67.170.4.25 ( talk) 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In the girl's house, there's a little Robby the Robot toy (can be seen over her shoulder when she's looking at the Doctor on TV)... if there's a suitable place at some point, somebody feel free to add this in. -- umrguy 42 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but isn't the reference The French Revolution to An Unearthly Child wrong and should be to The Girl in the Fireplace? I only have seen the beginning of An unearthly child and it did seem very french revolutionny to me...I don't edit directly as I may be wrong. Someone please correct if I am right. Napy1kenobi ( talk) 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
An Unearthly Child was set in the present day and 100,000BC (i.e. caveman times). The historical scenes in Fireplace were set not long before the Revolution. Digifiend ( talk) 13:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed, for the time being, the section on reception. The only source here seems to be some fan site (and what's more the links seem to be flaky). Let's wait for newspaper reports based on the overnights. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that Moffat's first published Doctor Who fiction, the story "Continuity Errors" in Decalog 3: Consequences was also set in a planet-sized library? Daibhid C ( talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Link "Data Ghost" to "Ghost in the shell" ? Ghost in the Shell (philosophy)#Ghosts --gon 18:02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this for now because I don't recall it, so can someone please confirm that Rose called Jack's sonic blaster a "squareness gun" in " The Doctor Dances"? U-Mos ( talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason for these paragraphs to be removed, as they are both blatant and deliberate nods to previous episodes. As per the section above, Rose's coining of the term "squareness gun" can be mentioned in the former paragraph. I concede that the last sentence of the first paragraph is borderline, and it is worthy of discussion whether it can be mentioned or not (in adding it, I felt this change of opinion is notable in a section on continuity, but due to the briefness of its appearance and the circumstances surrounding it this could be seen as interpretation). But the rest must stay. U-Mos ( talk) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Done, although I am still curious as to why Arcayne took objection to the points in the first place. U-Mos ( talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As I noted in U-Mos' usertalk space, drawing those connections is synthesis, a part of our No Original Research policy. The reference about the doctor liking a little shop being connected to earlier instances when he has said this is synthesis, as it is us (the editor) making that connection, and not a citable, notable, reliable source. The same goes for the squareness gun reference. That something recurs in different episodes isn't really that notable. The bit on the protocol is important (notable), as it is a fairly significant plot device, and it is also referenced within the episode by the characters. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1. As shown on the BBC Doctor Who website, there are a number of books in the library that reference previous episodes. Among those seen are the operating manual for the TARDIS, Origins of the Universe (Destiny of the Daleks), The French Revolution (An Unearthly Child), the Journal of Impossible Things ("Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood"), The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (written by Douglas Adams, former Doctor Who writer and script editor), Everest in Easy Stages (The Creature from the Pit) and Black Orchid (a book first seen in the Fifth Doctor serial of the same name).
- 2. The Doctor mentions that, should Donna be left in the TARDIS alone for five hours, "emergency program one" would activate and send her home. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home.
- 3. The "squareness gun" used by River Song works in the same way as Captain Jack Harkness' "sonic blaster", seen in the first series episode "The Doctor Dances" (also written by Moffat). In that episode, Rose Tyler coined the term "squareness gun", which the Doctor re-uses here.
- 4. The psychic paper has previously summoned the Doctor to a location in "New Earth", where the Face of Boe called the Doctor to his supposed deathbed.
- 5. The Doctor also mentions that he loves "a little shop", a sentiment previously expressed in the episodes "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones".
Not only do you seem to be grossly literalising the guidelines on synthesis, you seem to not understand at all the use of a continuity section. The whole point of such a section is to take aspects of the episode that reference and mimc (or conversley, contradict) previous episodes. To take up the little shop point again, it's not "the Doctor has been helped by a shop before, yet this time the shop is a bit different" kind of thing. That WOULD be synthesis. The exact same phrase is used as in previous episodes, and the line is in the script purely as a nod to regular viewers. It doesn't really get any more continuity-worthy. And the squareness gun, it's not "ooh, it's a bit like something we've seen before", it's the same weapon used in the same way and given the same name. Again, it wouldn't have been in the episode at all if it was not for its previous appearance. Linking these events together is not synthesis, as it's the whole point of their respective appearances to do so. I'm now going to quote the other continuity points that were synthesis, and were quite rightly removed, so people can see how different their cases are:
These three points all do link to earlier events unnecessarily, the last two particularly just linking the events of this episode to similar occurences in the show's history. (The first could remain with a reference or in light of future episodes, but as it is it's just fan speculation.) These are a world apart from the two points in question, which make relevant and notable connections that were intended by the writer. U-Mos ( talk) 08:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As I see this, pointing out a previous appearance of a phrase, joke, line or technology, is fine - but claiming a direct link and an intentional back-reference by the writer isn't. Mentioning that such guns previously appeared in an episode by the same writer is shaky ground, as it implies that Moffat was linking, so to speak. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly appreciate you backing off of the dismissiveness. I will say it for a third time: consensus does not override policy, Period. If you want to change policy, you need to go elsewhere to change it; this article is not the place to attempt such. My considerations concerning this matter are supposrted by policy (and not a warping of such, as was rather uncivilly suggested). Let's take your very words Saturn:
Says who? Do you have a citation that stipulates such? No, one has not been added. Therefore , you (and the contributor who added it initially) are presenting the comparison through the lens of your own observations. The episode did not even mention Captain Jack or where the gun's naming came into existence. It is synthesis to filter that info through prior episodes. You are not citable, and neither is your observation comparing other episodes. This article is about a single episode of the Doctor Who series, and not an overview of continuity issues.
While I am sorry if you don't want to talk about the dismantling of the fancrufty continuity stuff, but every article within Wikipedia needs to follow the same rules and policies; that's wwhat makes it an encyclopedia. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
19:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Once more: we are not making any interpretations, we are merely stating fact: that these things have been seen before in the programme. This is the whole purpose of a continuity point. As long as no conclusions are drawn (eg. "This could mean that River Song is a Time Agent like Jack" at its most extreme), I cannot see how the policy prevents this sort of thing from being noted. And I belive we're really going to have to agree to disagree here. U-Mos ( talk) 09:58, 5 June 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.
I read in the article about Prof River Song that she "appeares to be bisexual". Is that implied in the episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Najhoant ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But since we can't add anything about her supposed bisexuality to the article without dripping into the eternal champagne-flute of original research, let's stop this here :-) ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Confidential episode for "Forest of the Dead" has none other than Davies and Moffat finding it significant enough to talk at length about the facts that it is the same squareness gun, and that it is the payoff to the Doctor's fondness for "little shops". It's very regular for continuity section things to be included because of a source in Confidential. Give it up, Arcayne. -- AvatarMN ( talk) 06:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You're on ANI, Arcayne. Since you've decided that policy allows you to ban me from your talkpage, I'll tell you here. Comments such as: "my (correct) interpretation of policy apparently jeopardizes the article (btw, it doesn't)" are unconstructive and incivil - if you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, then perhaps Earth isn't the right place for you. Separating this section from the main RfC is inappropriate as I'm sure you know. ╟─ TreasuryTag ( talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
River Song is a new character, but an unusual one in that she is apparently familiar with Doctor Who and seems to know quite a lot about him.
In one addition that was removed from the article, I remarked that her reaction to Doctor Who's mention of Emergency Programme One demonstrates her familiarity with the TARDIS. I later went back and examined the scene, which is a minute or two before the cliffhanger ending and leads up to it. Doctor Who says something like "If she's alone in the TARDIS for more than five hours, Emergency Programme One will be triggered", and River Song completes his sentence for him, something like "yes, sending her home."
I think this was a valid addition to the continuity aspects of the article. For instance, in the current version (22:11 UTC, 5 June 2008) we have:
As I implied above, this is inaccurate. The following would be more accurate:
Furthermore I think it might be appropriate to produce a few paragraphs about the way in which writer Steven Moffat demonstrates River Song's apparent familiarity with The Doctor. These include her possession of a sonic screwdriver that he recognises as exactly like his own, which she claims he gave her.
Now at this stage we can't rule out subterfuge or byzantine plot twists (hence my use of the qualifier "apparent" above), but I think there is a lot we can say here which is reasonable analysis rather than synthesis. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This cannot be in the continuity section, as it simply isn't continuity. The only place it could go in this article is the synopsis, but it may be difficult to know where. My advice would be to wait, becaue River Song will probable become notable enough for her own article in the future. U-Mos ( talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
To be continuity, it would have to relate to another episode of Doctor Who. While program one itself does, River Song's knowledge of the TARDIS deos not. If, for instance, in a future episode program one is used on her, the point could be mentioned in this article. But her knowledge is part of the mystery of her character, and is not relevant to any other episode. I have added a sentence where RS is first mentioned in the synopsis, and this should suffice here. U-Mos ( talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the squareness gun is already mentioned. Secondly, although her knowledge is notable (as I said, it's now in the synopsis), it is not continuity. River having knowledge of the TARDIS is not relevant to any other episode, or the show as a whole. It is relevant to her and this episode only. Just because she displays knowledge of an aspect specifically mentioned before in the series does not make it relevant to this other mention, although of course the program warrants a continuity point on its own. But the essence of the point is not that she knows emergency program one, but that she knows about the TARDIS. This is not (yet?) relevant to the continuity of Doctor Who. As I said earlier, if in the future of the show she is subjected to emergency program one it will become notable in that sense. U-Mos ( talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Gotta agree. While we agree that it's important, there's no argument about that, it's not continuity in the sense that it relates to previous episodes. It's just plot points to be resolved next time. — Trust not the Penguin ( T | C) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I would ask here first, rather than presume to edit. But amongst the things that tie this episode to the 5th series is when Professor Song is talking to Anita about "her Doctor", she says, "The Doctor in the TARDIS. Next stop, everywhere". The latter said by the 11th Doctor to Amy Pond, but more importantly, the former used by Prisoner Zero and Angel Bob. Interestingly, the Doctor appears at that moment, saying "Spoilers". Anyway, should "The Doctor in the TARDIS" be mentioned? LMB02 ( talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel something along these lines should be mentioned, but I can't figure out how it can be done without going into OR and triviality. Basically, there is an irony that RTD pushed for the latter episodes of the series to be broadcast at 7 rather than around 6:20, as he thought it would lose the show 1.5 million viewers. This led to this episode, as opposed to I'd Do Anything, competing with Britain's Got Talent on the first broadcast. This means that the episode almost certainly lost viewers by being broadcast at a later time. Is there any way this can be included in the article? U-Mos ( talk) 13:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that sarcasm I detect? Well there's citation for RTD wanting the show to be on later and the later episodes being put on later, and there's citation for the low ratings due to BGT. I was thinking along the lines of "ironically, this episode was only competing with BGT due to RTD's belief that an earlier broadcast time would lose the show 1.5 million views [citation]" at the end of the first "broadcast and reception" paragraph. But I understand it's treading the very fine line we like to call "OR" (don't worry, I won't use the "s" word). U-Mos ( talk) 14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
@SoWhy: The citation I meant was the one used in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), which doesn't mention I'd Do Anything, but it doesn't have to for the point to stand. Maybe just changing the first sentence to say "Due to RTD's belief that a broadcast earlier than 7 o' clock could lose DW 1.5 million viewers [citation], "Silence in the Library" was first broadcast at the same time as..." BUT upon closer inspection of this citation, we have this quote from RTD: "it will shift later on in the run, around episode five or six, which the BBC was going to do anyway." That makes this point void. Oh well. U-Mos ( talk) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's about as ironic that the first ever RTD-era episode to not be at the top in the ratings was by super-duper-praised writer Steven Moffat, especially since he's about to take over (and was praised heavily by Davies in the eighth and ninth episodes of this year's Doctor Who COnfidential). It's about as ironic that this ratings dip was for new episode number 50, a milestone. It's ironic that, after taking a week out to accommodate Eurovision, people can hardly remember to tune in to the show, when Partners in Crime did so well (as I think was originally pointed out, despite its time slot). Et cetera. There are oh so many observations like this that just don't belong in Wikipedia, as long as its NOR principle is as non-negotiable as NPOV. Apart from anything else, trying to include these things requires us either to be selective in a judgemental manner or else have a long list of them. I suppose that's why criticism, trivia etc. sections are so discouraged by the rules. (Mind you, if I'm honest, I have the same soft spot as U-Mos for these hilarious truths, which belong in Doctor Who wikis as an absolute minimum.) 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 15:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this episode aired nearly two weeks ago, can we really justify protecting the page because we're frightened silly people will still find it funny to add stupid things, so as to play pranks on people who would have had to not seen any Doctor Who in quite a while to fall for it? In my opinion, no. (I apologise if I sounded a little harsh. I'm just trying to encapsulate the reason people want such protection.) I therefore request that the page be unprotected. 129.67.53.232 ( talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
"Doctor Who website" = primary source. Cirt ( talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I just do not see this stuff as having gotten significant discussion in secondary sources not affiliated with the article's subject. It is not notable or noteworthy. Cirt ( talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see how this fact possibly violates NOR. It uses primary sources to make a wholly descriptive claim - that these two texts by Steven Moffat both contain an identical joke. It does not claim that the latter use is an explicit reference or in-joke, or give any attempt at a (synthesized) explanation - it merely notes that the same joke is used in both sources. Were the sources by different authors it could perhaps be called OR on the grounds that it implies causality, but this is two things by the same writer. Were the article claiming anything other than that the line appears in both episodes, it might be OR. But as it stands, the claim is the very definition of "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The claim is merely "A joke about being pleased at being told you have the IQ of plankton appears in both sources." That is, in fact, straightforward and descriptive. 96.39.62.90 ( talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
@ Mezigue: I noticed that you deleted some of the continuity section previously added, and thought that some of it is worth adding back. I agree that it's off topic to deeply talk about all the events mentioned, but given that they are direct references and later form important plot points, I think it's worth mentioning them. Before you delete what I've added, can we talk about exactly what is relevant and come to some consensus? Smith (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)