This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planet of the Dead 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 |
Planet of the Dead has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BBC Website as confirmed that the episdoe will be shown during the easter period, But at present the date is not confirmed { Ucebaggie ( talk) 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)}.
On the bbc doctor who adventure calander , in an interveiw with Russell, he mentions nymonds in the easter special. There was a nymon in the horns of nymon. Is ts true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.181.122 ( talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The Horns of Nimon is mentioned - although I think it was linked more with a "two part climax to the specials", in a discussion with Judie Gardner and RTD. Interview can be found here. Edgepedia ( talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Lee Evans referred to his character as a professor on a UK TV show, but the video is posted on a blog so I am unsure whether it can be used as a ref. Here is the link [1], I'll let more enlightened minds decide. magnius ( talk) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am new at editing, so I am just posting this to make others aware so they can edit the article. It is possible that the Easter special may be postponed as the Double Decker bus, which is integral to the storie's plot, has been irreperably damaged in transport to the filming location (rumored to be Dubai). BBC has reportedly made the decision to rewrite the plot to allow for the now unusable bus as transportation costs to get a new doubledecker to the filming site are too high. Here is the source: < http://io9.com/5139062/doctor-whos-new-vehicle-has-already-crashed>
Thank you for abiding my noobness, Alteran1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alteran1 ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The script at about 1:57 is the EP15 shooting script, and says
A marble plinth, .... medieval drinking cup. .... gli???? ???els. This is the CUP .... SECURITY CHIEF (CONT'D) And, activating He throws a big lever on the wall. FX: there are four free-standing poles in a square around the plinth, and from them, a FENCE OF BLUE LASER BEAMS activates. Low hum of power. The square of guards are standing outside the fence, all facing out. SECURITY CHIEF (CONT'D) Night then, boys. He leaves. Footsteps echoing. The door shuts, SLAM! Silence. Guards on duty. PAN up the room, from the PLINTH & FX BEAMS, to... The ceiling. A panel slides open, silently -
However the last four lines are blurred, deliberately I would suggest. Edgepedia ( talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
And as it seems to start with Christina de Souza on a jewellery heist, it does sound as if this is very early in the episode. Edgepedia ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
gli??? ??els - glinting jewels??? would make sens eif part of a robbery OR i know but hecj - I'm excited.. the blurring is possible to read maybe - anyone else got a good screen capture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Hammard ( talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The infobox states that this ep is part of Series 4, presumably because the production team have decided to use series 4 production codes. Shouldn't this be changed to "2009-10 Specials" and a page of this name created? It also seems a bit silly to have the Series 4 template at the bottom of the page when "Planet of the Dead" isn't even included in the episodes. Pdb781 ( talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion about a name here [3]. To be consistent with the section title Specials (2009-10) my suggestion for a name would be Doctor Who specials (2009-10) but I wonder if we will have enough for an article about four specials that wouldn't be in the episode articles. Edgepedia ( talk) 19:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Something was not seeming right, so I looked at Lady. If she's English, then perhaps she should be referred to as The Lady Christina de Souza. Of course, if she's an alien, then she can call herself what she wants. Edgepedia ( talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, if the BBC call her Lady Christina (whoch to date they have done), we should. It's not that vital. :) NP Chilla ( talk) 14:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate to add anything to the page, since the source - while seemingly accurate - is probably not deemed authoritative, but it seems a third bus has now been acquired by the BBC and shipped to Dubai to replace the damaged one - possibly making rewrites unnecessary (or at the very least, minor). The source, via a blog, is Bristol Commercial Vehicles Enthusiasts, the author of which claims to have been involved in sourcing the buses for the production. I'm also wary of this page becoming "the saga of the bus", though I suppose since it has an impact on the production of the episode it's all at least vaguely relevant. -- Guybrush ( talk) 02:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't have an image for this episode so far, but I was wondering if any of the images released by the BBC so far can be used? I am not sure how fair use really works, so don't want waste my time uploading and adding a pic that can't be used. Anyway, the pics release so far are here [4] magnius ( talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No companion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.248.169 ( talk) 14:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no companion in this episode as Lady Christina does not fly in the TARDIS. 100.0.244.109 ( talk) 22:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
As this is the only unbroadcast episode being filmed at the moment do you think this is noteworthy? -- Hammard ( talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ignore me, this is filmed for the Christmas special -- Hammard ( talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Not everybody is Christian. Ergo, not everybody knows when Christian holidays are, especially the ones that are on a different date every year. I shouldn't have to look on a separate (and unrelated) page to find the broadcast date for an episode where that information is known (which I did, since I didn't have the slightest clue of when Easter falls this year). ShaleZero ( talk) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert this, but this as been discussed at length [ [6]]. It's wrong because we know that it's not being broadcast on Friday 10th as the listing magazines are already in the shops. However, we will know by this time tomorrow, when the Easter listing magazines come out. Edgepedia ( talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If we knew it was going to be broadcast on Saturday or Sunday, why not say that? The article already listed Easter weekend as the airdate; all I did was note the dates where Easter weekend falls this year. The wrong information was already there. ShaleZero ( talk) 14:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we all leave the article as it is until we find out the date for sure (probably within a few days)? ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that there's an edit war going on. Please note that WP:NFCC 3 and 8 mean that there is an onus on those wishing to include a non-free image to justify the inclusion. The default status is not to include otherwise. TTFN. 212.32.109.12 ( talk) 13:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Or WP:FUR, which is even more proper ;-) Like Bold, Revert, Discuss, the image doesn't hurt anyone there, we won't be sued if we spend 24h discussing it. Revert-warring is just harmful, and it's the NFCC guys starting this, this time, it seems. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Episodes have an atmosphere. They can be "scary and dark," "light and entertaining," "bizarrely alien," - the insectivoid-monster-in-the-desert theme is quite a new one, and how better to demonstrate the theme and feel than a picture of an insectivoid-monster-in-the-desert? Granted, what I've written is crap, makes little sense, and would embarass a primary-school pupil. And that's precisely why an image is needed in this case, it's irreplaceable by words. In my opinion. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a moratorium, at least, on uploading fair use images to episode articles before they air? They rarely get seen as NFCC-compliant. We need to not be able to describe a scene in words and give context to the image. Future episode articles rarely, if ever, do that. Sceptre ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Xeno over the image, naturally. Incidentally, the link to the trailer isn't any good, it's UK-only and shouldn't be included, therefore. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The broadcasting date has been confirmed.
Here's the proof. Please add "6:45pm 11 April 2009" to the introduction section of the article. --
Meph (
talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Note - a major spoiler is just breaking on the Doctor Who Forum about {spoiler, click to see}. It'll need to be removed if added (as I'm sure it will be) since it's baseless and unsourced, though extremely exciting... I'm out tonight, so I just thought I ought to let people know. Have a nice evening! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There's been a little back-and-forth about how the link to the next special (in the "following" field of the infobox) should look. There are two related disputes going on about the second special's article (currently located at 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who): one issue is the AfD, currently displaying a consensus towards "keep" but still open, and the other is the article's name. We have a source giving the title "The Waters of Mars", but there is a dispute over its reliability. However, no one disputes that reliable sources (namely, Russell T Davies and David Tennant) have said that the current plan is for it to air in November, not at Christmas. There's a consensus that the current title is wrong, but there is no consensus yet as to what the title should be. Also, the presence of the AfD complicates any page renaming/moving. Chances are it will stay at the current (inaccurate) title until after "Planet of the Dead" airs, when we'll probably have the title for the next special. Until then, the best way to indicate the next special is a piped link like this: TBA. That way, we point readers to the correct (although currently mistitled) article, but the visible text here isn't misleading. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged it because I intend to work on the article tonight. Not now, though; around about midnight BST. Sceptre ( talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (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'm seriously thinking of putting this back in and am presenting the case here.
The Planet of the Dead episode hints at the Masters return. The drup taps tap-tap-tap-tap was a significant plot mechanism in The Sound of Drums as illustrated in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQooQeNvbs. The whole score to that episode used that repeating four beat pattern also. The Master described it as being the noise he heard constantly in his head. 4 knocks is very like four taps or drum beats and fits with what a lot of news sites are saying including the Sun newspaper.
The words "it is returning through the dark" have would also fit with reports of Rose returning after being trapped in the alternate universe.
There are several site reporting this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2329695.ece - Says Rose is coming back as well as John Simm as the Master
http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/04/06/doctor-who-spoilers-for-tennants-last-hurrah/
http://www.denofgeek.com/television/229592/doctor_who_john_simm_returns.html - John Simm seen on location
I do not think this is idle speculation or worthy of comments such as "Oh, give it a break". Russel T Davies (the writer of this episode) is well known for hiding messages about plot lines in the episodes and this all lives up to the mark!
Amhoyle ( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for future reference, the sun isn't a reliable source for anything. "It is Returning through the dark" could also be marking the Masters return. The dark could be the timelord afterlife. we don't know. but that much is my speculation which could be completely disregarded as absolute drivel 69.81.177.23 ( talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe that nobody but me has considered that this hint might be refering to the 'thing' from Midnight! As Carmen was talking to the Doctor, the musical score from Midnight started to play in the background, also, she said about 'returning through the darkness' (Midnight) and that he'd 'knock four times' (the creature mirrored The Doctor's four knocks on the outside of the bus). Anyone else think this? o.o Mattrius ( talk) 09:05, 12 April 2009 (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.
Well, I don't think that this counts as tabloid speculation. RTD writes a column for DWM, called production notes. A couple of issues ago, he wrote: "One new enemy from the specials is hidden on this page somewhere...happy hunting!" I think this refers to him also writing on the same page "The Master is Prime Minister!" OK, he does use the word "new" but, I don't think that it's a coincidence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.254.213 ( talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Planet of the Dead's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "factfile":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Doctor when talking to Malcom about the files mentioned the giant robot, which is assumably a referance to 'Robot', Tom Bakers first serial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.150.229 ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I'm not having a gripe, but when I mentioned in the above section that the Doctor makes a reference to " Robot" it was classified as 'Original Research' and removed. Surely that's what the dialogue was actually referring to?
Apologies again, but for once I'd just like to be able to contribute to the Doctor Who pages without other users assuming you're treading on their toes. Absurdtrousers ( talk) 12:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It would make sense as it was a story featuring UNIT and would therefore have a file on it. As the Doctor assumes when he asks the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monk farmer ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well unless the character says "Remember in the episode when I did that" I can't see how a reference to something in another episode, is different to this one. But whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.156.86 ( talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Another possible reference to other episodes is when The Doctor says 'Humans on buses, always blaming me', referring to the episode Midnight. Also, on the subject of citations for references, a lot of entries in other articles don't cite anything, and the citation in this article doesn't point to an interview where RTD says 'ABC refers to XYZ', so I don't see why the sudden fuss. Old Marcus ( talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other UNIT episodes that have a giant robot? There are a few with Cybermen, but I don't think any other that really qualifies as giant. Ratemonth ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see it's already been removed. Good. Per WP:BRD, please refrain from re-adding it until the discussion has taken place. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I might have gone over 3RR with my revert just now, but I consider the edit in question to have been pretty much vandalism. Unexplained pointless reversion adding in original research. I'll gladly self-revert or apologise if requested, though, just let me know. Thanks/sorry! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Until a reliable source turns up, this discussion has been closed. ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm withholding opinion on the Robot mention for the time being, but I'd like to point out that the reference to The Stolen Earth and Journey's End rests on exactly the same footing. If we can argue that the Doctor's line about "the giant robot" is not necessarily a reference to Doctor Who and the Giant Robot, we can argue with the same justification that Barclay and Nathan's remarks aren't necessarily a reference to The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, my position is, that we should allow direct quotes as references (planets in the sky, song will end soon) but not more ambigouss statements. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I recognise the seeming difference TreasuryTag sees between the Journey's End and Robot references, and the four knocks = Master nonsense, I just don't see that it is a tangible and demonstrable difference. Is it not more that we are certain of our thoughts on the Robot connection without any evidence to support it in the same way that they are certain of the four knocks=master reference without any evidence to support it? Fair enough we are more likely to be correct, but without evidence it is still an unsourced supposition unworthy of an encyclopedia. Let us not fall into the trap of superiority and allow ourselves to make the mistakes we forbid to others. I take Josiah's point about previous articles containing unsourced continuity, and I recognise that I am a newcomer round these parts and probably oughn't to rock an established boat, but if the three FA episode articles do not feature this type of material, is this not the time to learn our lesson from that and work towards a better set of articles in general, starting right here by being strict with ourselves about unsourced guesswork, no matter how likely it is the guesses are correct? -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 12:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
We all know that the 'giant robot' that appears in UNIT's files is the robot from Robot. It is an obvious reference that is recognisable to anyone who has seen both stories. It is hardly going to refer to some other giant robot that has never been seen on-screen that also happens to have been encountered by the UNIT and the Doctor, as the entire purpose of the reference is nostalgic. It is a simple deduction, and the original Robot episode itself serves as a suitable reference. WP:NOTOR.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions that the Ood will be appearing in "The Waters of Mars", however there is nothing in the linked source that proves that the filming was for this episode. Do we know for sure that this information is accurate? magnius ( talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have obviously read the source; I am also
assuming good faith of Jonah Josiah, one of the most experienced admins in the Doctor Who WikiProject. Wait to see what he has to say. It may be, "Oh yeah, I hadn't noticed that, take it out," in which case I'm fine with it going. But there's nothing wrong with courteously theorising that he knows what he's doing. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
contribs─╢ 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
< No, you don't seem pedantic at all, and I tend to agree with you. However, the reliable, professional source says this as fact, and we're not allowed to evaluate their statements. If they say it, it's verifiable, which is the threshold - not truth. If they were to publish a story saying that the Master was returning, then we could also include that. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
And it's been removed. That was constructive. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to thank TreasuryTag for his kind words, which I'm not sure I entirely deserve. As for the issue at hand, it's true that the io9 article does not say explicitly that the filming was for
The Waters of Mars; however, it does say that Lindsay Duncan is on hand, and we know that she's the guest star for that episode.
This raises the question of whether an inference like this (source says Lindsay Duncan and Ood spotted in filming; therefore filming is for the same episode) constitutes original research or synthesis. I concede that on the strictest, most pedantic reading of WP:NOR this could be construed as synthesis. However, I'm a strong believer in using common sense in a case like this. Newpaper reports ( [11], [12]) say that the filming that night was for the second special. io9 also says so in another article. That's three sources identifying the filming for that night. I think that it's safe to say that Ood Sigma was spotted on location during filming for the second special. That way, we're still covered in the unlikely event that the Lindsay Duncan bits were for The Waters of Mars but the Ood wasn't. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note 15 reads: "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DWMroberts". Man of wealth and taste ( talk) 10:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any source confirming that Lady Lara Croft was an inspiration for Lady Christina de Souza? An aristocratic lady adventurer with a backpack full of impossible things, stealing ancient or medieval artifacts. She's pretty much a clone of Croft with a different appearance. Of course, this might always be coincidence. 90.135.153.253 ( talk) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Jane Anders of io9 describes Lady Christina as a "Lara Croft knockoff" in her review. I think that io9 is a reliable source, as it's professionally produced and edited, and Anders has been published elsewhere on the subject of science fiction. This isn't enough for us to make a claim that Christina was inspired by Lara, but we could certainly add it to the "reception" section once it's developed a bit more. (I'd add it now myself, but in the absence of any other reviews the bald statement " Charlie Jane Anders of io9 described Lady Christina as a "Lara Croft knockoff"" would have WP:WEIGHT problems.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have recently done an edit of this page last night, adding an image ( File:Nazwa sand dunes 01.jpg). However, in this edit, Sceptre seemed to have reverted it without explaination (unless I'm missing something). I don't want to re-add it without a discussion first, so I can avoid edit warring. I'm just wondering why it has been removed. There are reasons why I have added that image in the first place.
If there are reasons why is is removed, then I'll be happy to hear it. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn ( talk) 14:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If the desert in the free image is in the same area as the desert used for filming, I think it's a worthwhile addition. The fence isn't a problem if it's presented in the "real world" section of the article. Do we have any sources discussing the specific area of desert where the filming took place? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new image image:Planetdead.jpg. Tell me what you think. Leave a {{ Talkback|Talk:Planet of the Dead|Removal of free image}} when you do. Thanks, -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I will add that the image of the Doctor and the other cast, in front of a somewhat damaged London bus, in the middle of a desert, is replaceable by text - I just did it right there. A better image for this episode is something involving the swarm, maybe following the flying bus into the wormhole, maybe just as part of the swarm, etc. "Manta-ray like aliens" is less a replacement as the real picture of this. -- MASEM ( t) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A closeup of the manti alien or just the swam as a whole. Because I have both. How about the fly-like alien. -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 05:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Then see the article and tell me what you think. -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
During this episode's corresponding Confidential episode, when they replay the scene of the bus first going through the wormhole, the soundtrack plays a song with twangy guitars and orchestral backing. Anyone able to tell me what this is as I've been trying to figure it out to no avail. Radical AdZ ( talk) 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not the Master. From the podcast:
- David: And if you think you've figured out what that means, you're wrong!
- Julie: But when you do figure it out, it's a sad day.
Please and thank you. Sceptre ( talk) 02:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can someone undo this edit, which added original research against talkpage consensus, and was over 3RR: [17] [18] [19] Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ta very much. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am loathe to have this page protected so soon after transmission, as that is likely to be when the article grows most substantially. It seems like the problem is 3RR edit warring between one or two users. I'll keep an eye on this page, but if there are further 3RR violations (including any further reverts by anyone already at or over the line) please let me know and I will block the offending party, hopefully alleviating the problem without rendering the page uneditable.. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
As I look more, this is a pair of revert-warring users. The correct solution was not page protection, but dealing with each of the edit warriors, each of whom I've blocked for 24 hours. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Continuety" section is turning into an edit war regarding the robot. I have applied warnings to the annonymous IP, yet he/she continues to revert and I don't want this to turn into a war. I have already reverted this edit 3 times and cannot do it again for fear of the 3RR. Could someone who knows the procedure better please deal with it? Thank you. magnius ( talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked User:136.244.13.71 and semi-protected the page for 3 days. No problem if any other admin wants to remove it at any point. Black Kite 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
For me to use later when writing the reception article:
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored the image because Sceptre's image shows the bus too far away and shows no detail of the swarm. He wants to accentuate the damage to the bus, but that is not a central plot element, and also hardly visible. — Edokter • Talk • 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With the damaged bus image along with the details of how the bus was damaged literally as a prop, I've gone ahead and swapped out the "flying bus + swarm" image with just the closeup of the aliens as the infobox one. I'm going to move the damaged bus pic to the filming section since that's where its most useful. -- MASEM ( t) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we now have four non-free images on this page:
The last image is redundant given the 2nd and 3rd, as it can be described/visualized once you give the visual idea of images 2 and 3 and describe the bus as "flying". I propose that the second image, the closeup of the swarm aliens, replace that image of the flying bus in the caption, and move the current standing shot of the bus (#3) down to where the bus damage is discussed in the filming section. The current flying bus image is no longer necessary and should then be deleted. -- MASEM ( t) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Play.com have the DVD release for "Doctor Who - Planet of the Dead" listed as 29/06/2009. Anyone know if it's going to be released on Blu-Ray? Blaine Coughlan ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the article perhaps mention that this numbering is inconsistent with similar contemporaneous advertising by the BBC themselves of Dragonfire as 150th? Peter jackson ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Worth mentioning? I can't find a source to back that up though. YeshuaDavid ( talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The references to Robot in the continuity section that were decided by consensus to be removed have been re-added, along with references to Midnight and other such stories. Since this is against consensus reached above on this talk page I tried to remove them, but the page has been protected. If I don't remember to do this, could someone else remove the offending articles when the time is right? Thanks. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you unlock this article so that anon IP users can edit it. It would be very constructive as other unregestered user can pitch in their knowledge without logging in. -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
To prevent the slow edit-war over the infobox image, why not move the image of the aliens into the infobox, and then re-instate the "damaged bus + cast" picture which I removed as superfluous to the infobox one. Then neither of the images that are being warred over need to be in the article? Just a thought (and three NF images is enough). Black Kite 11:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, from a NFCC#8 standpoint:
Sceptre, I can't drop you a note on your talk page as I'm not registered, so I thought it best to leave one here. I wasn't trying to be rude with those couple of grammar corrections. I didn't even know they were both your edits I was correcting until I checked afterwards! If semicolon lists are cool on wikipedia that is ok, but in the wider world they tend to be a little frowned on as commas serve that function well by themselves in the context that you were using them in. I was simply working to the standard rules. I guess it is just different styles of doing it. Not a problem if you prefer your semicolon lists. I was just trying to improve article, not have a pop at you! If you want to revert it to your style again, that is fine! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth including such a section, where the references to Quatermass, Hywel Dda and King Athelstan can be placed? Absurdtrousers ( talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Its worth adding that name "San Helios" is extremely close to "Sanghelios" planet in the Halo universe, homeworld of the Sangheili (Elite) race. Both planets are triple star systems. Given the widespread influence of Halo on all Sci-fi since 2001 its unlikely this is coincidence. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yaguaraz (
talk •
contribs) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I am beginning a new GA review of this article, per the discussion at the recent reassessment. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian ( T · C) 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I love this article. :) :) But then, I appreciate the wholand, so why not. I do have some comments, that probably would fall into section 1, of the writing phase. I could be wrong on this, but I do think the WP:MOS wants us to put punctuation inside the quotes, and footnotes outside, and in standard MOS format, only the colon would go on the outside -- all others would be inside the quotes, except possibly in a few very unusual circumstances. Secondly, I can think of no reason why there would be two end quotation marks, as there is in Broadcast section. Thus the sentence in particular I'm looking at offers several of the MOS points that I mentioned:
Charlie Jane Anders of io9 "mostly loved "Planet Of The Dead"", commenting that it was a standard Russell T Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story":
....mostly loved "Planet of the Dead," commenting that it was a standard Russel T. Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story": etc. This said, such comments are actually quite minor.
Second, the lead is not as well written as the rest of the article and, I think, deserves another edit for clarity. There are a lot of preposition phrases -- sort of a pileup of prepositional phrases, you might say, and these could be clarified so that the lead reads as well as the rest of the article. Just mho.... -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh....and "one-off companion" ... I don't understand what that means. ... One time companion? -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Why the heck did I fail this article the first time? Excellent job!
Vicenarian ( T · C) 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Planet of the Dead. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Planet of the Dead. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
"after a positive reaction to the visual quality of spin-off series Torchwood and the financial viability of HDTV convinced the production team to switch formats."
Does anyone know at what episode Torchwood went HD? Unfortunately no info on the Torchwood Wikipedia entry, and the internet link to "Doctor Who to be filmed in HD" has been removed from the Wayback machine... Thanks. 2001:A61:24C4:A900:6470:47EA:9A3E:51A0 ( talk) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planet of the Dead 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 |
Planet of the Dead has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BBC Website as confirmed that the episdoe will be shown during the easter period, But at present the date is not confirmed { Ucebaggie ( talk) 19:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)}.
On the bbc doctor who adventure calander , in an interveiw with Russell, he mentions nymonds in the easter special. There was a nymon in the horns of nymon. Is ts true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.181.122 ( talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The Horns of Nimon is mentioned - although I think it was linked more with a "two part climax to the specials", in a discussion with Judie Gardner and RTD. Interview can be found here. Edgepedia ( talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Lee Evans referred to his character as a professor on a UK TV show, but the video is posted on a blog so I am unsure whether it can be used as a ref. Here is the link [1], I'll let more enlightened minds decide. magnius ( talk) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I am new at editing, so I am just posting this to make others aware so they can edit the article. It is possible that the Easter special may be postponed as the Double Decker bus, which is integral to the storie's plot, has been irreperably damaged in transport to the filming location (rumored to be Dubai). BBC has reportedly made the decision to rewrite the plot to allow for the now unusable bus as transportation costs to get a new doubledecker to the filming site are too high. Here is the source: < http://io9.com/5139062/doctor-whos-new-vehicle-has-already-crashed>
Thank you for abiding my noobness, Alteran1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alteran1 ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The script at about 1:57 is the EP15 shooting script, and says
A marble plinth, .... medieval drinking cup. .... gli???? ???els. This is the CUP .... SECURITY CHIEF (CONT'D) And, activating He throws a big lever on the wall. FX: there are four free-standing poles in a square around the plinth, and from them, a FENCE OF BLUE LASER BEAMS activates. Low hum of power. The square of guards are standing outside the fence, all facing out. SECURITY CHIEF (CONT'D) Night then, boys. He leaves. Footsteps echoing. The door shuts, SLAM! Silence. Guards on duty. PAN up the room, from the PLINTH & FX BEAMS, to... The ceiling. A panel slides open, silently -
However the last four lines are blurred, deliberately I would suggest. Edgepedia ( talk) 17:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
And as it seems to start with Christina de Souza on a jewellery heist, it does sound as if this is very early in the episode. Edgepedia ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
gli??? ??els - glinting jewels??? would make sens eif part of a robbery OR i know but hecj - I'm excited.. the blurring is possible to read maybe - anyone else got a good screen capture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Hammard ( talk) 11:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The infobox states that this ep is part of Series 4, presumably because the production team have decided to use series 4 production codes. Shouldn't this be changed to "2009-10 Specials" and a page of this name created? It also seems a bit silly to have the Series 4 template at the bottom of the page when "Planet of the Dead" isn't even included in the episodes. Pdb781 ( talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion about a name here [3]. To be consistent with the section title Specials (2009-10) my suggestion for a name would be Doctor Who specials (2009-10) but I wonder if we will have enough for an article about four specials that wouldn't be in the episode articles. Edgepedia ( talk) 19:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Something was not seeming right, so I looked at Lady. If she's English, then perhaps she should be referred to as The Lady Christina de Souza. Of course, if she's an alien, then she can call herself what she wants. Edgepedia ( talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, if the BBC call her Lady Christina (whoch to date they have done), we should. It's not that vital. :) NP Chilla ( talk) 14:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate to add anything to the page, since the source - while seemingly accurate - is probably not deemed authoritative, but it seems a third bus has now been acquired by the BBC and shipped to Dubai to replace the damaged one - possibly making rewrites unnecessary (or at the very least, minor). The source, via a blog, is Bristol Commercial Vehicles Enthusiasts, the author of which claims to have been involved in sourcing the buses for the production. I'm also wary of this page becoming "the saga of the bus", though I suppose since it has an impact on the production of the episode it's all at least vaguely relevant. -- Guybrush ( talk) 02:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't have an image for this episode so far, but I was wondering if any of the images released by the BBC so far can be used? I am not sure how fair use really works, so don't want waste my time uploading and adding a pic that can't be used. Anyway, the pics release so far are here [4] magnius ( talk) 14:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
No companion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.248.169 ( talk) 14:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, there is no companion in this episode as Lady Christina does not fly in the TARDIS. 100.0.244.109 ( talk) 22:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
As this is the only unbroadcast episode being filmed at the moment do you think this is noteworthy? -- Hammard ( talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ignore me, this is filmed for the Christmas special -- Hammard ( talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Not everybody is Christian. Ergo, not everybody knows when Christian holidays are, especially the ones that are on a different date every year. I shouldn't have to look on a separate (and unrelated) page to find the broadcast date for an episode where that information is known (which I did, since I didn't have the slightest clue of when Easter falls this year). ShaleZero ( talk) 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert this, but this as been discussed at length [ [6]]. It's wrong because we know that it's not being broadcast on Friday 10th as the listing magazines are already in the shops. However, we will know by this time tomorrow, when the Easter listing magazines come out. Edgepedia ( talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If we knew it was going to be broadcast on Saturday or Sunday, why not say that? The article already listed Easter weekend as the airdate; all I did was note the dates where Easter weekend falls this year. The wrong information was already there. ShaleZero ( talk) 14:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we all leave the article as it is until we find out the date for sure (probably within a few days)? ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that there's an edit war going on. Please note that WP:NFCC 3 and 8 mean that there is an onus on those wishing to include a non-free image to justify the inclusion. The default status is not to include otherwise. TTFN. 212.32.109.12 ( talk) 13:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Or WP:FUR, which is even more proper ;-) Like Bold, Revert, Discuss, the image doesn't hurt anyone there, we won't be sued if we spend 24h discussing it. Revert-warring is just harmful, and it's the NFCC guys starting this, this time, it seems. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Episodes have an atmosphere. They can be "scary and dark," "light and entertaining," "bizarrely alien," - the insectivoid-monster-in-the-desert theme is quite a new one, and how better to demonstrate the theme and feel than a picture of an insectivoid-monster-in-the-desert? Granted, what I've written is crap, makes little sense, and would embarass a primary-school pupil. And that's precisely why an image is needed in this case, it's irreplaceable by words. In my opinion. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a moratorium, at least, on uploading fair use images to episode articles before they air? They rarely get seen as NFCC-compliant. We need to not be able to describe a scene in words and give context to the image. Future episode articles rarely, if ever, do that. Sceptre ( talk) 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Xeno over the image, naturally. Incidentally, the link to the trailer isn't any good, it's UK-only and shouldn't be included, therefore. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The broadcasting date has been confirmed.
Here's the proof. Please add "6:45pm 11 April 2009" to the introduction section of the article. --
Meph (
talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Note - a major spoiler is just breaking on the Doctor Who Forum about {spoiler, click to see}. It'll need to be removed if added (as I'm sure it will be) since it's baseless and unsourced, though extremely exciting... I'm out tonight, so I just thought I ought to let people know. Have a nice evening! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There's been a little back-and-forth about how the link to the next special (in the "following" field of the infobox) should look. There are two related disputes going on about the second special's article (currently located at 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who): one issue is the AfD, currently displaying a consensus towards "keep" but still open, and the other is the article's name. We have a source giving the title "The Waters of Mars", but there is a dispute over its reliability. However, no one disputes that reliable sources (namely, Russell T Davies and David Tennant) have said that the current plan is for it to air in November, not at Christmas. There's a consensus that the current title is wrong, but there is no consensus yet as to what the title should be. Also, the presence of the AfD complicates any page renaming/moving. Chances are it will stay at the current (inaccurate) title until after "Planet of the Dead" airs, when we'll probably have the title for the next special. Until then, the best way to indicate the next special is a piped link like this: TBA. That way, we point readers to the correct (although currently mistitled) article, but the visible text here isn't misleading. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged it because I intend to work on the article tonight. Not now, though; around about midnight BST. Sceptre ( talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (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'm seriously thinking of putting this back in and am presenting the case here.
The Planet of the Dead episode hints at the Masters return. The drup taps tap-tap-tap-tap was a significant plot mechanism in The Sound of Drums as illustrated in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQooQeNvbs. The whole score to that episode used that repeating four beat pattern also. The Master described it as being the noise he heard constantly in his head. 4 knocks is very like four taps or drum beats and fits with what a lot of news sites are saying including the Sun newspaper.
The words "it is returning through the dark" have would also fit with reports of Rose returning after being trapped in the alternate universe.
There are several site reporting this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2329695.ece - Says Rose is coming back as well as John Simm as the Master
http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/04/06/doctor-who-spoilers-for-tennants-last-hurrah/
http://www.denofgeek.com/television/229592/doctor_who_john_simm_returns.html - John Simm seen on location
I do not think this is idle speculation or worthy of comments such as "Oh, give it a break". Russel T Davies (the writer of this episode) is well known for hiding messages about plot lines in the episodes and this all lives up to the mark!
Amhoyle ( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for future reference, the sun isn't a reliable source for anything. "It is Returning through the dark" could also be marking the Masters return. The dark could be the timelord afterlife. we don't know. but that much is my speculation which could be completely disregarded as absolute drivel 69.81.177.23 ( talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe that nobody but me has considered that this hint might be refering to the 'thing' from Midnight! As Carmen was talking to the Doctor, the musical score from Midnight started to play in the background, also, she said about 'returning through the darkness' (Midnight) and that he'd 'knock four times' (the creature mirrored The Doctor's four knocks on the outside of the bus). Anyone else think this? o.o Mattrius ( talk) 09:05, 12 April 2009 (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.
Well, I don't think that this counts as tabloid speculation. RTD writes a column for DWM, called production notes. A couple of issues ago, he wrote: "One new enemy from the specials is hidden on this page somewhere...happy hunting!" I think this refers to him also writing on the same page "The Master is Prime Minister!" OK, he does use the word "new" but, I don't think that it's a coincidence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.254.213 ( talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Planet of the Dead's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "factfile":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Doctor when talking to Malcom about the files mentioned the giant robot, which is assumably a referance to 'Robot', Tom Bakers first serial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.150.229 ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I'm not having a gripe, but when I mentioned in the above section that the Doctor makes a reference to " Robot" it was classified as 'Original Research' and removed. Surely that's what the dialogue was actually referring to?
Apologies again, but for once I'd just like to be able to contribute to the Doctor Who pages without other users assuming you're treading on their toes. Absurdtrousers ( talk) 12:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It would make sense as it was a story featuring UNIT and would therefore have a file on it. As the Doctor assumes when he asks the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monk farmer ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well unless the character says "Remember in the episode when I did that" I can't see how a reference to something in another episode, is different to this one. But whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.156.86 ( talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Another possible reference to other episodes is when The Doctor says 'Humans on buses, always blaming me', referring to the episode Midnight. Also, on the subject of citations for references, a lot of entries in other articles don't cite anything, and the citation in this article doesn't point to an interview where RTD says 'ABC refers to XYZ', so I don't see why the sudden fuss. Old Marcus ( talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other UNIT episodes that have a giant robot? There are a few with Cybermen, but I don't think any other that really qualifies as giant. Ratemonth ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see it's already been removed. Good. Per WP:BRD, please refrain from re-adding it until the discussion has taken place. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I might have gone over 3RR with my revert just now, but I consider the edit in question to have been pretty much vandalism. Unexplained pointless reversion adding in original research. I'll gladly self-revert or apologise if requested, though, just let me know. Thanks/sorry! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Until a reliable source turns up, this discussion has been closed. ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm withholding opinion on the Robot mention for the time being, but I'd like to point out that the reference to The Stolen Earth and Journey's End rests on exactly the same footing. If we can argue that the Doctor's line about "the giant robot" is not necessarily a reference to Doctor Who and the Giant Robot, we can argue with the same justification that Barclay and Nathan's remarks aren't necessarily a reference to The Stolen Earth/Journey's End. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, my position is, that we should allow direct quotes as references (planets in the sky, song will end soon) but not more ambigouss statements. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I recognise the seeming difference TreasuryTag sees between the Journey's End and Robot references, and the four knocks = Master nonsense, I just don't see that it is a tangible and demonstrable difference. Is it not more that we are certain of our thoughts on the Robot connection without any evidence to support it in the same way that they are certain of the four knocks=master reference without any evidence to support it? Fair enough we are more likely to be correct, but without evidence it is still an unsourced supposition unworthy of an encyclopedia. Let us not fall into the trap of superiority and allow ourselves to make the mistakes we forbid to others. I take Josiah's point about previous articles containing unsourced continuity, and I recognise that I am a newcomer round these parts and probably oughn't to rock an established boat, but if the three FA episode articles do not feature this type of material, is this not the time to learn our lesson from that and work towards a better set of articles in general, starting right here by being strict with ourselves about unsourced guesswork, no matter how likely it is the guesses are correct? -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 12:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
We all know that the 'giant robot' that appears in UNIT's files is the robot from Robot. It is an obvious reference that is recognisable to anyone who has seen both stories. It is hardly going to refer to some other giant robot that has never been seen on-screen that also happens to have been encountered by the UNIT and the Doctor, as the entire purpose of the reference is nostalgic. It is a simple deduction, and the original Robot episode itself serves as a suitable reference. WP:NOTOR.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions that the Ood will be appearing in "The Waters of Mars", however there is nothing in the linked source that proves that the filming was for this episode. Do we know for sure that this information is accurate? magnius ( talk) 10:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have obviously read the source; I am also
assuming good faith of Jonah Josiah, one of the most experienced admins in the Doctor Who WikiProject. Wait to see what he has to say. It may be, "Oh yeah, I hadn't noticed that, take it out," in which case I'm fine with it going. But there's nothing wrong with courteously theorising that he knows what he's doing. ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
contribs─╢ 10:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
< No, you don't seem pedantic at all, and I tend to agree with you. However, the reliable, professional source says this as fact, and we're not allowed to evaluate their statements. If they say it, it's verifiable, which is the threshold - not truth. If they were to publish a story saying that the Master was returning, then we could also include that. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
And it's been removed. That was constructive. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to thank TreasuryTag for his kind words, which I'm not sure I entirely deserve. As for the issue at hand, it's true that the io9 article does not say explicitly that the filming was for
The Waters of Mars; however, it does say that Lindsay Duncan is on hand, and we know that she's the guest star for that episode.
This raises the question of whether an inference like this (source says Lindsay Duncan and Ood spotted in filming; therefore filming is for the same episode) constitutes original research or synthesis. I concede that on the strictest, most pedantic reading of WP:NOR this could be construed as synthesis. However, I'm a strong believer in using common sense in a case like this. Newpaper reports ( [11], [12]) say that the filming that night was for the second special. io9 also says so in another article. That's three sources identifying the filming for that night. I think that it's safe to say that Ood Sigma was spotted on location during filming for the second special. That way, we're still covered in the unlikely event that the Lindsay Duncan bits were for The Waters of Mars but the Ood wasn't. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Note 15 reads: "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named DWMroberts". Man of wealth and taste ( talk) 10:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know of any source confirming that Lady Lara Croft was an inspiration for Lady Christina de Souza? An aristocratic lady adventurer with a backpack full of impossible things, stealing ancient or medieval artifacts. She's pretty much a clone of Croft with a different appearance. Of course, this might always be coincidence. 90.135.153.253 ( talk) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Charlie Jane Anders of io9 describes Lady Christina as a "Lara Croft knockoff" in her review. I think that io9 is a reliable source, as it's professionally produced and edited, and Anders has been published elsewhere on the subject of science fiction. This isn't enough for us to make a claim that Christina was inspired by Lara, but we could certainly add it to the "reception" section once it's developed a bit more. (I'd add it now myself, but in the absence of any other reviews the bald statement " Charlie Jane Anders of io9 described Lady Christina as a "Lara Croft knockoff"" would have WP:WEIGHT problems.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have recently done an edit of this page last night, adding an image ( File:Nazwa sand dunes 01.jpg). However, in this edit, Sceptre seemed to have reverted it without explaination (unless I'm missing something). I don't want to re-add it without a discussion first, so I can avoid edit warring. I'm just wondering why it has been removed. There are reasons why I have added that image in the first place.
If there are reasons why is is removed, then I'll be happy to hear it. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn ( talk) 14:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If the desert in the free image is in the same area as the desert used for filming, I think it's a worthwhile addition. The fence isn't a problem if it's presented in the "real world" section of the article. Do we have any sources discussing the specific area of desert where the filming took place? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new image image:Planetdead.jpg. Tell me what you think. Leave a {{ Talkback|Talk:Planet of the Dead|Removal of free image}} when you do. Thanks, -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 22:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I will add that the image of the Doctor and the other cast, in front of a somewhat damaged London bus, in the middle of a desert, is replaceable by text - I just did it right there. A better image for this episode is something involving the swarm, maybe following the flying bus into the wormhole, maybe just as part of the swarm, etc. "Manta-ray like aliens" is less a replacement as the real picture of this. -- MASEM ( t) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
A closeup of the manti alien or just the swam as a whole. Because I have both. How about the fly-like alien. -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 05:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Then see the article and tell me what you think. -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
During this episode's corresponding Confidential episode, when they replay the scene of the bus first going through the wormhole, the soundtrack plays a song with twangy guitars and orchestral backing. Anyone able to tell me what this is as I've been trying to figure it out to no avail. Radical AdZ ( talk) 01:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not the Master. From the podcast:
- David: And if you think you've figured out what that means, you're wrong!
- Julie: But when you do figure it out, it's a sad day.
Please and thank you. Sceptre ( talk) 02:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can someone undo this edit, which added original research against talkpage consensus, and was over 3RR: [17] [18] [19] Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ta very much. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am loathe to have this page protected so soon after transmission, as that is likely to be when the article grows most substantially. It seems like the problem is 3RR edit warring between one or two users. I'll keep an eye on this page, but if there are further 3RR violations (including any further reverts by anyone already at or over the line) please let me know and I will block the offending party, hopefully alleviating the problem without rendering the page uneditable.. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 14:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
As I look more, this is a pair of revert-warring users. The correct solution was not page protection, but dealing with each of the edit warriors, each of whom I've blocked for 24 hours. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Continuety" section is turning into an edit war regarding the robot. I have applied warnings to the annonymous IP, yet he/she continues to revert and I don't want this to turn into a war. I have already reverted this edit 3 times and cannot do it again for fear of the 3RR. Could someone who knows the procedure better please deal with it? Thank you. magnius ( talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked User:136.244.13.71 and semi-protected the page for 3 days. No problem if any other admin wants to remove it at any point. Black Kite 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
For me to use later when writing the reception article:
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I restored the image because Sceptre's image shows the bus too far away and shows no detail of the swarm. He wants to accentuate the damage to the bus, but that is not a central plot element, and also hardly visible. — Edokter • Talk • 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
With the damaged bus image along with the details of how the bus was damaged literally as a prop, I've gone ahead and swapped out the "flying bus + swarm" image with just the closeup of the aliens as the infobox one. I'm going to move the damaged bus pic to the filming section since that's where its most useful. -- MASEM ( t) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we now have four non-free images on this page:
The last image is redundant given the 2nd and 3rd, as it can be described/visualized once you give the visual idea of images 2 and 3 and describe the bus as "flying". I propose that the second image, the closeup of the swarm aliens, replace that image of the flying bus in the caption, and move the current standing shot of the bus (#3) down to where the bus damage is discussed in the filming section. The current flying bus image is no longer necessary and should then be deleted. -- MASEM ( t) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Play.com have the DVD release for "Doctor Who - Planet of the Dead" listed as 29/06/2009. Anyone know if it's going to be released on Blu-Ray? Blaine Coughlan ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Should the article perhaps mention that this numbering is inconsistent with similar contemporaneous advertising by the BBC themselves of Dragonfire as 150th? Peter jackson ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Worth mentioning? I can't find a source to back that up though. YeshuaDavid ( talk) 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The references to Robot in the continuity section that were decided by consensus to be removed have been re-added, along with references to Midnight and other such stories. Since this is against consensus reached above on this talk page I tried to remove them, but the page has been protected. If I don't remember to do this, could someone else remove the offending articles when the time is right? Thanks. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you unlock this article so that anon IP users can edit it. It would be very constructive as other unregestered user can pitch in their knowledge without logging in. -- Tyw7 ( Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
To prevent the slow edit-war over the infobox image, why not move the image of the aliens into the infobox, and then re-instate the "damaged bus + cast" picture which I removed as superfluous to the infobox one. Then neither of the images that are being warred over need to be in the article? Just a thought (and three NF images is enough). Black Kite 11:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, from a NFCC#8 standpoint:
Sceptre, I can't drop you a note on your talk page as I'm not registered, so I thought it best to leave one here. I wasn't trying to be rude with those couple of grammar corrections. I didn't even know they were both your edits I was correcting until I checked afterwards! If semicolon lists are cool on wikipedia that is ok, but in the wider world they tend to be a little frowned on as commas serve that function well by themselves in the context that you were using them in. I was simply working to the standard rules. I guess it is just different styles of doing it. Not a problem if you prefer your semicolon lists. I was just trying to improve article, not have a pop at you! If you want to revert it to your style again, that is fine! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth including such a section, where the references to Quatermass, Hywel Dda and King Athelstan can be placed? Absurdtrousers ( talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Its worth adding that name "San Helios" is extremely close to "Sanghelios" planet in the Halo universe, homeworld of the Sangheili (Elite) race. Both planets are triple star systems. Given the widespread influence of Halo on all Sci-fi since 2001 its unlikely this is coincidence. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yaguaraz (
talk •
contribs) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I am beginning a new GA review of this article, per the discussion at the recent reassessment. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian ( T · C) 23:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I love this article. :) :) But then, I appreciate the wholand, so why not. I do have some comments, that probably would fall into section 1, of the writing phase. I could be wrong on this, but I do think the WP:MOS wants us to put punctuation inside the quotes, and footnotes outside, and in standard MOS format, only the colon would go on the outside -- all others would be inside the quotes, except possibly in a few very unusual circumstances. Secondly, I can think of no reason why there would be two end quotation marks, as there is in Broadcast section. Thus the sentence in particular I'm looking at offers several of the MOS points that I mentioned:
Charlie Jane Anders of io9 "mostly loved "Planet Of The Dead"", commenting that it was a standard Russell T Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story":
....mostly loved "Planet of the Dead," commenting that it was a standard Russel T. Davies script that had the "elements of a cracking good story": etc. This said, such comments are actually quite minor.
Second, the lead is not as well written as the rest of the article and, I think, deserves another edit for clarity. There are a lot of preposition phrases -- sort of a pileup of prepositional phrases, you might say, and these could be clarified so that the lead reads as well as the rest of the article. Just mho.... -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh....and "one-off companion" ... I don't understand what that means. ... One time companion? -- Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Why the heck did I fail this article the first time? Excellent job!
Vicenarian ( T · C) 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Planet of the Dead. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Planet of the Dead. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
"after a positive reaction to the visual quality of spin-off series Torchwood and the financial viability of HDTV convinced the production team to switch formats."
Does anyone know at what episode Torchwood went HD? Unfortunately no info on the Torchwood Wikipedia entry, and the internet link to "Doctor Who to be filmed in HD" has been removed from the Wayback machine... Thanks. 2001:A61:24C4:A900:6470:47EA:9A3E:51A0 ( talk) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)