Talk:Let's Kill Hitler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLet's Kill Hitler 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.
Good topic starLet's Kill Hitler is part of the Doctor Who (Series 6) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Continuity WAY too much[edit]

This continuity is far far far too long, exceeding the plot itself. I know there's a lot of connections to the past episodes, but lets remember, we need to work these articles in an out-of-universe fashion. Some of this stuff likely can fall into the series arc aspects. Really, unless its obvious or sourced by a third-party, we shouldn't be including it. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a little: the thing about the sonic cane having the same abilities as the screwdriver (not continuity at all) and about River going "backwards" where supposedly she looks subtly older--total OR. Glimmer721 talk 17:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...Okay, so maybe the ageing thing was not completely OR--it's mentioned in this review, but I still don't think it's relative to the overal continuity. Glimmer721 talk 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I do think is continuity is that River says "Hello sweety" for the first time in her timeline to The Doctor in the end. LOTG (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think people tend to mis-understand what the continuity section is for. The most blatant piece of continuity in the ep, ie. the Doctor's new coat, hasn't even gone near the section since broadcast, and yet we get such a deluge of over-complex and/or OR rubbish. U-Mos (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is a change of outfit really that significant? I realize that the Doctor's outfit is nearly a universal constant, but wearing on type of trenchcoat over another type seems nitpicky. Of course, if the change is noted by sources, then by all means... --MASEM (t) 00:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of it being an on-going element of the series, I'd say it certainly is. It's a major costume difference, not just (for instance) the blue shirt that debuted earlier this year, and is akin to the alterations of the fourth doc's costumes which are noted in The Android Invasion and Destiny of the Daleks. U-Mos (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did the Doctor whisper?[edit]

I think the last point under "continuity" should be removed as OR, because we don't actually know what the Doctor said to Melody/River. He could have just been telling her how much he loved her or something... Until we know for sure this is when the Doctor told her his real name I think it should be removed. 210.48.101.90 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in the article[edit]

  • the Tesselecta (?) is spelled in various ways, one or two s.. 83.163.5.82 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd think it should be spelled one way. But different sources are spelling it differently.[1][2] It seems the "one s" version is more common. Thoughts? --Ebyabe (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Spell it this way. Teselecta. Therefore the article should be one S not two. Globalwheels (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crop circle...[edit]

I was going to give the plot a grammar boost and improve the clarity, but I have a question. The first sentence reads: "In modern-day Leadsworth, Amy and Rory create a crop circle to gain the Doctor's attention." Now, the impression I got was that the crop circle was always there; Amy and Rory just drove around it to make it the "O" in "Doctor". Or did I misinterpret this? Glimmer721 talk 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched, and it showed them crossing over paths, not just driving around in a circle. Obvious interpretation is they were responsible for it all. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of this "crossing over paths" is consistent with what Glimmer says. The crop circle was there before Amy and Rory appeared on the scene and their driving created the other letters, which together with the circle, spelled "doctor". Mels then created the line through the word. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Adlon[edit]

Was this place ever named in the episode or Confidential, or has someone just decided it is it? Mezigue (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good spot on someone's part, for the hotel name is indeed visible on-screen. U-Mos (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Series opener...?[edit]

Okay, this technically a mid-series opener, correct? It's not the beginning of the series. The Mirror reported that its ratings (6.2 million, which SFX said was good for a BBC drama, and IGN said theywere solid) were the lowest for a "series opener". So I suppose that's not an article to quote in the "Broadcast" section, correct? I'm not British so I'm not familar with The Mirror, but it seems their reporting is quite sarcastic. Honestly, in a few years I'm sure no one will care about ratings anymore, because it is so easy to record it and watch it when more accessible or watch it on the iPlayer, which I would do if I lived in the UK and the show was on at 6 or 7 o'clock. Glimmer721 talk 22:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontological Paradoxes[edit]

The first paragraph of the Continuity section points out " ontological paradoxes", yet The Doctor giving River her blue Tardis notebook is not an ontological paradox. It looks brand new, as if he just popped out and bought it somewhere (special-order, I would guess) and gave it to her as a gift. While he would not have known to give it to her had he not seen it in his past/her future, the object itself is not an ontological paradox; he did not give her the object from the future. The episode simply reveals where she did get it in the first place. I think it is a worthwhile continuity item, as the notebook figures is all of the River Song episodes, but in the wrong place. Actually, looking back at the paragraph, the only true paradox is the naming of Melody after herself. Therefore, "... several of which include ontological paradoxes" should be removed and instead the sentence "Mels' name would be used in turn by Amy to name her daughter." should be changed to, "Mels' name would be used in turn by Amy to name her daughter, which is an ontological paradox." (This is the first time I've tried to edit, and I don't want change it unless someone else agrees.. *blush*) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthafine (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the book itself (its creation and fate are known): its where the idea of the TARDIS book came from; its the same as the transcript from Blink. Same with the name River Song in this episode. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although technically they are not paradoxes, as they are perfectly acceptable in the block universe/B-theory of time travel. Glimmer721 talk 02:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Let's Kill Hitler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to this one soon (can't review the other one since I haven't seen it yet!) Ruby 2010/2013 21:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Fixed. That website just got a redesign, which means there are going to be a lot of new dead links throughout the project... Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "In the episode, alien time traveller the Doctor (Matt Smith) and his companions Amy Pond (Karen Gillan) and Rory Williams (Arthur Darvill), Amy's husband, ..." - a bit wordy, maybe change to "...and his companions Amy Pond (Karen Gillan) and her husband Rory Williams (Arthur Darvill), crash land..."
Done. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hitler -> Adolf Hitler
Done. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for Teselecta?
Done. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • unexpectedlyregenerates - space needed
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the Teselecta pursue her instead, while she has poisoned the Doctor and his death looms." - there are some tense issues here that could be fixed
Changed it to "the Teselecta pursue her instead, whilst the Doctor faces death from her poisoned lipstick". Wasn't sure if I should throw the lipstick in, but I'm not sure how else to say it. Open to changes. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Moffat without explaining that he wrote the episode. The director could also use a mention in the lead
Yeah, I just thought that first paragraph in the lead seemed about the right length... Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • while the The Temple of Peace in Cardiff - typo
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "...joining the Luna University to become an archaeologist as to find the Doctor..." - as to -> and?
Changed it to "to", since she is becoming an archaeologist so she can find him. Glimmer721 talk
  • ...the young Amelia ("The Eleventh Hour" - the parentheses aren't closed )
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come! Ruby 2010/2013 01:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production
  • "...Writer Steven Moffat wanted show Hitler..." - to show?
Yeah... Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Smith, Gillan, and Darvill had previous filmed..." -> previously?
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast and reception
  • "The episode also came in a number one..." -> at number one?
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode received positive reviews from critics" - it seems like it received "mostly" positive reviews, as you include some negative ones towards the end
Yeah, those were added later. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly minor prose issues, so I'll place the review on hold for seven days. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 02:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am done! Thanks for reviewing. Glimmer721 talk 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. I recall this being an interesting episode, though I think I preferred A Good Man Goes to War a little more (simply because of the River revelation). Passing for GA. Keep up the great DW work! Ruby 2010/2013 04:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directed by...[edit]

Who is this Richard Senior? Aside from IMDb and a blog or two he doesn't really exist on the internet... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC says he was the director of this episode: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0146h0q Ratemonth (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops... my bad, I guess I've become a bit trigger happy over ninja style edits. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Let's Kill Hitler. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Let's Kill Hitler. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let%27s_Kill_Hitler&oldid=1208152904"