This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weeping Angel 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The weeping angels are not actually stone sculptures, they just resemble them, in the way daleks resemble salt and pepper shakers. I am not a deletionist, so I won't revert the category, but it seems dubious at best. Don't blink! μηδείς ( talk) 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For those who have not read the article, the weeping angels were inspired by real world statues, such as the one depicted in the article with a free image. μηδείς ( talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Should the article contain an unreferenced sentence and an arbitrary image observing the aliens' alleged visual similarity to Christian statues? 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the comment that the Weeping Angels resemble Christian statues is helpful if there is no verifiable link. I think
Paul Merton looks like
Nick Griffin – but this fact (or 'opinion') is
not worth noting unless a reliable source can be found to back it up.
With regard to the image, more or less the same principle applies. I could put a picture of
Westminster Abbey on the
Houses of Parliament page: they certainly look similar. But unless I can back it up with references about their respective architectural styles, the observation is a useless one.
The relevant Wikipedia guideline tells us that, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Unless anybody can point me towards a verifiable source to the contrary, that is simply not true of the photograph in question.
I would also like to take this opportunity to condemn
Medeis (
talk ·
contribs), whose
refusal to discuss before entering into a revert-war has made the whole issue much more contentious than it need be. I can only suggest that they read
WP:BRD,
WP:OWN and
WP:CON in addition to the more specific policy pages to which I've linked above. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
most serene─╢
18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the part of the sentence in the lede that discusses the similarity to Christian statues should be removed unless it can be referenced, but I don't understand your comment about the image at all. It is an image from the show specifically about the subject. The correct comparison would be using a picture of the Westminster Abbey in the article about said Abbey. Obviously, that is appropriate. Silver seren C 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the text, but lacking a quote from Moffat saying "I saw this statue in particular", we shouldn't have anything except an official image of some sort (screenshot, touring exhibition, etc.) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to remove the word Christian from the line in the lead but Moffat himself has said, my bold:
SM: Blink is basically that statues game isn't it? That Grandma's Footsteps game which I always found frightening. I know kids find it exciting and interesting. And if you can do the thing like we do at the end of the episode where you say "and every statue out there is secretly a Weeping Angel..." Come on! If you ask people to recall the moments they remember of Doctor Who as you've been doing, how often is it they remember the scary bit? ( http://www.stevenmoffat.net/smn.who.dwc3.10.htm)
Given that this is the only actual free weeping angel statue image that I am aware of us having, I don't know what the opposition is to it for illustrating the real world object.
μηδείς ( talk) 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice image. Completely irrelevant to this article, of course, and so should be removed. But a nice image all the same. Daicaregos ( talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no such claim that this is an image of "the" statue that inspired Moffat. There is no such text in the article. It is simply a free image of a relevant type statue to illustrate then to readers who may not be familiar with them. The current caption simply identifies where that particular statue is located. If the text is confusing and implies that, then I would happily edit it, except that Tag has threatened to file an AN3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis ( talk • contribs)
I suggest changing the sentence "Created by writer Steven Moffat, they resemble the stone angel statues that can be seen in some Christian cemeteries." to "Steve Moffat, their creator, attributes their appeal to childhood games such as Grandma's Footsteps and the notion from that every statue out there is secretly a Weeping Angel."<ref>http://www.stevenmoffat.net/smn.who.dwc3.10.htm</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis ( talk • contribs)
I think that if no verifiable source can be added to provide context of a comparison between a fictional race of aliens and Christian statues, then it should be removed, because so far no consensus of keeping it has been reached and it can somewhat confuse the reader that is going to assimilate Christian figures to the race introduced in Doctor Who series. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
if a weeping angel turns into stone when seen, then in the episode "flesh and stone" when the angels realize Amy Pond can't open her eyes, and start to move, why do they still look like stone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.81.221 ( talk) 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It says if two Weeping Angels look at each-others eyes they are both turned to stone forever. Since they always turn to stone when someone's looking at them and if they're both looking at each-other neither can move. But if a person came by a turned one of them around so they aren't staring at each-other would they be fixed? Or is it permanent either way? Dartpaw86 ( talk) 18:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Dartpaw86
To add later: [1] Eshlare ( talk) 13:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm from the UK and Steven Moffat is almost exactly the same age as me. I saw The Time of Angels for the first time this evening and was immediately struck by the 'stone statues that only move when you're not looking at them' theme. I was scared stiff as a kid by the British tv series Escape Into Night [2] [3] (based on the book Marianne Dreams by Catherine Storr) which had standing stones which came closer and closer to a house and its trapped inhabitants, but you never saw them move. They only came closer when you looked away. This tv series affected me so much as a kid that I still think about it, 40 years on - those creepy one eyed monoliths and their inexplicable ability to get closer and closer each time you looked away. Did it have an effect on Moffat too? Was it an inspiration for this episode? The similarities seem just too great to be coincidental - stones/stone figures that only move when you're not looking at them. I'm sure he must have been influenced by it. Has he mentioned it anywhere? 86.133.211.19 ( talk) 21:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Another similarity - in Escape Into Night the stones take over the radio in the house and it can't be turned off and so they are broadcasting in the house all the time. There's a scene in one of the Angels episodes where an angel is on a video which Amy can't turn off. 86.134.91.155 ( talk) 07:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see that "(also known as the Lonely Assassins" was added here, without an edit summary. I'm sure that it may well be correct and I've just not noticed this usage. (Believe me, I am absolutely prepared to accept that there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who watch Doctor Who more carefully than I do.) But the only thing I find odd is that having been mentioned in the lead paragraph it never seems to come back in the body text, so there's no explanation of who says it or when or why or whatever. Assuming it is correct, can we please have a bit more information on this usage to tie it better into the article? Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've just made my account on wikipedia and my first edit was putting information about when the weeping angels appeared in "the time of the doctor" as before there was just a brief statement saying they 'would' appear rather then detailing the events in the 'appearences' section. Would be grateful if anyone could check the edit and suggest further improvements, thanks Lamakickmojo ( talk) 00:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Lamakickmojo
Hi - I stumbled upon this page in search of a commons image of a Weeping Angel that could be used on Wikiversity. Your current image is not allowed on commons, but since posting the suggestion that you need a section on Bell's theorem, I found the image. I (or we) will develop Wikiversity:Bell's theorem and Wikiversity:Bell's theorem/Weeping Angels and link to this page soon. edit recently revised by -- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The image to the right was deleted by an experienced editor who enforces the rules of Wikipedia. I have little doubt that DonQuixote was following Wikipedia guidlines in reverting. I pose two questions:
The "charges" against my edit are valid. See:
All of these say that an image with the caption "Don't blink" is inapproriate because the reader has no reason to see the Hidden Angel suddenly get larger. And the reader has no expectation of stumbling onto a page of Quantum mechanics. Moreover, the two adjacent images of the Hidden Angel is a bit of unnecessary decoration, as the editor noted on the summary made to the revert.
Here is my offer:
I will create section near the end on Hidden Angels and Quantum Mechanics. By moving the second nearly identical image down the page we avoid the charge of overdecoration. The heading will prepare the reader for a page on Quantum mechanics. Anybody who knows Dr. Who would not be astonished to see the Angel suddenly seem closer after clicking a link that says "Don't blink". Given the context, a larger image of the same angel on a quantum mechanics page is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment
@ DonQuixote: Now that I have found what I am certain is a mutually agreeable solution, I can sincerely thank you for your actions. -- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 20:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
My first attempt was the image at the start of the article with no explanation. The caption contained the sister link to Wikiversity:Bell's theorem in a way that made the small image suddenly get bigger. That was reverted, and in response to the stated reason for the revert, I created the section "Quantum Mechanics". In my third attempt, I will be as brief as possible, change the title, but keep the material in the same place. It should take me an hour or so. Please don't revert till I am finished.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 00:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Done I moved the inline sister link to the bottom, just above the external links. I put it above the external link because the connection to quantum mechanics is part of the text of this article: It is always important when the science and the fiction of science-fiction are well matched. I also shortened the text, leaving out virtually all the science, since that obviously does not belong here. I put the link inside the figure caption because those not interested in Bell's theorem will enjoy watching the angel suddenly seem closer (bigger). It is now a glorified inline-sister link to a related topic on Wikiversity, with an image and a little trick that makes the angel jump towards the reader.--
Guy vandegrift (
talk)
01:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The caption contained the sister link to Wikiversity:Bell's theorem in a way that made the small image suddenly get bigger...I put the link inside the figure caption because those not interested in Bell's theorem will enjoy watching the angel suddenly seem closer (bigger).
I have never taken a case to higher authority, but I would like to do that here. The term "cutesy fansite" is clear and not offensive. But it is a subjective opinion that can be properly challenged. How does one go about challenging this. We are in a one-to-one tie.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 02:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by contributor.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 13:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We both agree is a "cutsie fansite" gimmick, but if you click on the words in the figure caption, you go to Wikiversity where the angel suddenly grows bigger. This is a link between two different wikis. But the small image is on Wikiversity, so its your call. Here is how I would do the section:
Quantum mechanics
Weeping Angels are described as quantum-locked entities that do not exist if one attempts to observe them. Observation also plays an important role in the theory of quantum mechanics (see Schrödinger's cat). Bell's theorem is no-go theorem of quantum mechanics that concerns the existence or non-existence local hidden variables.
While weeping angels don't exist while they are being observed, it can be argued that hidden variables don't exist until they are observed. In this sense, hidden variables and weeping angels are complementary entities.
Click the words in the caption of the figure to the right to learn about
Bell's theorem and hidden variables on Wikiversity.
This is not one of those issues that needs to be analyzed or debated. It's a matter of preference, and those who work on this article should decide. I am just offering a suggestion.--
Guy vandegrift (
talk)
03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Reques
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Weeping Angel 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The weeping angels are not actually stone sculptures, they just resemble them, in the way daleks resemble salt and pepper shakers. I am not a deletionist, so I won't revert the category, but it seems dubious at best. Don't blink! μηδείς ( talk) 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For those who have not read the article, the weeping angels were inspired by real world statues, such as the one depicted in the article with a free image. μηδείς ( talk) 18:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Should the article contain an unreferenced sentence and an arbitrary image observing the aliens' alleged visual similarity to Christian statues? 18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the comment that the Weeping Angels resemble Christian statues is helpful if there is no verifiable link. I think
Paul Merton looks like
Nick Griffin – but this fact (or 'opinion') is
not worth noting unless a reliable source can be found to back it up.
With regard to the image, more or less the same principle applies. I could put a picture of
Westminster Abbey on the
Houses of Parliament page: they certainly look similar. But unless I can back it up with references about their respective architectural styles, the observation is a useless one.
The relevant Wikipedia guideline tells us that, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Unless anybody can point me towards a verifiable source to the contrary, that is simply not true of the photograph in question.
I would also like to take this opportunity to condemn
Medeis (
talk ·
contribs), whose
refusal to discuss before entering into a revert-war has made the whole issue much more contentious than it need be. I can only suggest that they read
WP:BRD,
WP:OWN and
WP:CON in addition to the more specific policy pages to which I've linked above. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
most serene─╢
18:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the part of the sentence in the lede that discusses the similarity to Christian statues should be removed unless it can be referenced, but I don't understand your comment about the image at all. It is an image from the show specifically about the subject. The correct comparison would be using a picture of the Westminster Abbey in the article about said Abbey. Obviously, that is appropriate. Silver seren C 19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the text, but lacking a quote from Moffat saying "I saw this statue in particular", we shouldn't have anything except an official image of some sort (screenshot, touring exhibition, etc.) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to remove the word Christian from the line in the lead but Moffat himself has said, my bold:
SM: Blink is basically that statues game isn't it? That Grandma's Footsteps game which I always found frightening. I know kids find it exciting and interesting. And if you can do the thing like we do at the end of the episode where you say "and every statue out there is secretly a Weeping Angel..." Come on! If you ask people to recall the moments they remember of Doctor Who as you've been doing, how often is it they remember the scary bit? ( http://www.stevenmoffat.net/smn.who.dwc3.10.htm)
Given that this is the only actual free weeping angel statue image that I am aware of us having, I don't know what the opposition is to it for illustrating the real world object.
μηδείς ( talk) 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice image. Completely irrelevant to this article, of course, and so should be removed. But a nice image all the same. Daicaregos ( talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no such claim that this is an image of "the" statue that inspired Moffat. There is no such text in the article. It is simply a free image of a relevant type statue to illustrate then to readers who may not be familiar with them. The current caption simply identifies where that particular statue is located. If the text is confusing and implies that, then I would happily edit it, except that Tag has threatened to file an AN3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis ( talk • contribs)
I suggest changing the sentence "Created by writer Steven Moffat, they resemble the stone angel statues that can be seen in some Christian cemeteries." to "Steve Moffat, their creator, attributes their appeal to childhood games such as Grandma's Footsteps and the notion from that every statue out there is secretly a Weeping Angel."<ref>http://www.stevenmoffat.net/smn.who.dwc3.10.htm</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis ( talk • contribs)
I think that if no verifiable source can be added to provide context of a comparison between a fictional race of aliens and Christian statues, then it should be removed, because so far no consensus of keeping it has been reached and it can somewhat confuse the reader that is going to assimilate Christian figures to the race introduced in Doctor Who series. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
if a weeping angel turns into stone when seen, then in the episode "flesh and stone" when the angels realize Amy Pond can't open her eyes, and start to move, why do they still look like stone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.81.221 ( talk) 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It says if two Weeping Angels look at each-others eyes they are both turned to stone forever. Since they always turn to stone when someone's looking at them and if they're both looking at each-other neither can move. But if a person came by a turned one of them around so they aren't staring at each-other would they be fixed? Or is it permanent either way? Dartpaw86 ( talk) 18:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Dartpaw86
To add later: [1] Eshlare ( talk) 13:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm from the UK and Steven Moffat is almost exactly the same age as me. I saw The Time of Angels for the first time this evening and was immediately struck by the 'stone statues that only move when you're not looking at them' theme. I was scared stiff as a kid by the British tv series Escape Into Night [2] [3] (based on the book Marianne Dreams by Catherine Storr) which had standing stones which came closer and closer to a house and its trapped inhabitants, but you never saw them move. They only came closer when you looked away. This tv series affected me so much as a kid that I still think about it, 40 years on - those creepy one eyed monoliths and their inexplicable ability to get closer and closer each time you looked away. Did it have an effect on Moffat too? Was it an inspiration for this episode? The similarities seem just too great to be coincidental - stones/stone figures that only move when you're not looking at them. I'm sure he must have been influenced by it. Has he mentioned it anywhere? 86.133.211.19 ( talk) 21:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Another similarity - in Escape Into Night the stones take over the radio in the house and it can't be turned off and so they are broadcasting in the house all the time. There's a scene in one of the Angels episodes where an angel is on a video which Amy can't turn off. 86.134.91.155 ( talk) 07:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I see that "(also known as the Lonely Assassins" was added here, without an edit summary. I'm sure that it may well be correct and I've just not noticed this usage. (Believe me, I am absolutely prepared to accept that there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who watch Doctor Who more carefully than I do.) But the only thing I find odd is that having been mentioned in the lead paragraph it never seems to come back in the body text, so there's no explanation of who says it or when or why or whatever. Assuming it is correct, can we please have a bit more information on this usage to tie it better into the article? Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've just made my account on wikipedia and my first edit was putting information about when the weeping angels appeared in "the time of the doctor" as before there was just a brief statement saying they 'would' appear rather then detailing the events in the 'appearences' section. Would be grateful if anyone could check the edit and suggest further improvements, thanks Lamakickmojo ( talk) 00:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Lamakickmojo
Hi - I stumbled upon this page in search of a commons image of a Weeping Angel that could be used on Wikiversity. Your current image is not allowed on commons, but since posting the suggestion that you need a section on Bell's theorem, I found the image. I (or we) will develop Wikiversity:Bell's theorem and Wikiversity:Bell's theorem/Weeping Angels and link to this page soon. edit recently revised by -- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The image to the right was deleted by an experienced editor who enforces the rules of Wikipedia. I have little doubt that DonQuixote was following Wikipedia guidlines in reverting. I pose two questions:
The "charges" against my edit are valid. See:
All of these say that an image with the caption "Don't blink" is inapproriate because the reader has no reason to see the Hidden Angel suddenly get larger. And the reader has no expectation of stumbling onto a page of Quantum mechanics. Moreover, the two adjacent images of the Hidden Angel is a bit of unnecessary decoration, as the editor noted on the summary made to the revert.
Here is my offer:
I will create section near the end on Hidden Angels and Quantum Mechanics. By moving the second nearly identical image down the page we avoid the charge of overdecoration. The heading will prepare the reader for a page on Quantum mechanics. Anybody who knows Dr. Who would not be astonished to see the Angel suddenly seem closer after clicking a link that says "Don't blink". Given the context, a larger image of the same angel on a quantum mechanics page is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Principle_of_least_astonishment
@ DonQuixote: Now that I have found what I am certain is a mutually agreeable solution, I can sincerely thank you for your actions. -- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 20:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
My first attempt was the image at the start of the article with no explanation. The caption contained the sister link to Wikiversity:Bell's theorem in a way that made the small image suddenly get bigger. That was reverted, and in response to the stated reason for the revert, I created the section "Quantum Mechanics". In my third attempt, I will be as brief as possible, change the title, but keep the material in the same place. It should take me an hour or so. Please don't revert till I am finished.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 00:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Done I moved the inline sister link to the bottom, just above the external links. I put it above the external link because the connection to quantum mechanics is part of the text of this article: It is always important when the science and the fiction of science-fiction are well matched. I also shortened the text, leaving out virtually all the science, since that obviously does not belong here. I put the link inside the figure caption because those not interested in Bell's theorem will enjoy watching the angel suddenly seem closer (bigger). It is now a glorified inline-sister link to a related topic on Wikiversity, with an image and a little trick that makes the angel jump towards the reader.--
Guy vandegrift (
talk)
01:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The caption contained the sister link to Wikiversity:Bell's theorem in a way that made the small image suddenly get bigger...I put the link inside the figure caption because those not interested in Bell's theorem will enjoy watching the angel suddenly seem closer (bigger).
I have never taken a case to higher authority, but I would like to do that here. The term "cutesy fansite" is clear and not offensive. But it is a subjective opinion that can be properly challenged. How does one go about challenging this. We are in a one-to-one tie.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 02:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by contributor.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 13:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We both agree is a "cutsie fansite" gimmick, but if you click on the words in the figure caption, you go to Wikiversity where the angel suddenly grows bigger. This is a link between two different wikis. But the small image is on Wikiversity, so its your call. Here is how I would do the section:
Quantum mechanics
Weeping Angels are described as quantum-locked entities that do not exist if one attempts to observe them. Observation also plays an important role in the theory of quantum mechanics (see Schrödinger's cat). Bell's theorem is no-go theorem of quantum mechanics that concerns the existence or non-existence local hidden variables.
While weeping angels don't exist while they are being observed, it can be argued that hidden variables don't exist until they are observed. In this sense, hidden variables and weeping angels are complementary entities.
Click the words in the caption of the figure to the right to learn about
Bell's theorem and hidden variables on Wikiversity.
This is not one of those issues that needs to be analyzed or debated. It's a matter of preference, and those who work on this article should decide. I am just offering a suggestion.--
Guy vandegrift (
talk)
03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Reques