Talk:The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jack Back?[edit]

Is it worth putting the detail in about Jack being in the Christmas Special this year? List_of_Doctor_Who_serials seems to think this is the case, but I'm yet to find any other source to confirm this? The_B 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list article is referring to the special and series 3 at that point; not just the special. Percy Snoodle 12:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also - should it be worth mentionning that this will proably 'resolve' the cliffhanger that is referred to in all discussions regarding the end of 'Doomsday' (aired in July)? Rose/Billie Piper is alleged to be involved in the special... Crescent 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Key words: "probably", "alleged". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff about Jack appearing in the Doctor Who list is probably outdated information (that went up directly after Series one, before we knew that Jack was going to be in Torchwood). As to the "cliffhanger", well, it wasn't really, was it? The only mystery is who the hell is this "Bride" and how did she get in the TARDIS? Obviously, that is what this Christmas special will resolve. PaulHammond 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the Bride came through the dimension rift the Doctor was using to talk to Rose.
I'm not presuming anything - seemed to me like the Bride was really there, whereas the Doctor was just an image in the alternative universe. I think the Bride is from this universe, and I don't think she's human - what ordinary human could just get into the TARDIS like that? But I'm not going to add any of my personal speculations to the article - I'll wait till Christmas to find out! PaulHammond 12:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we now know he's not there, should this section be archived? --GwydionM 16:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffix "(Doctor Who)" to article name?[edit]

According to Runaway Bride, a disambiguation page, there are two films and a several novels with this name. Does this episode "deserve" the unsuffixed name? --Billpg 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so; there's one movie called The Runaway Bride (most of the other stuff is called Runaway Bride). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be better moved to a "The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who)" titled page. The title seems common enough and I can see people going "Runaway Bride? I loved that mo-What the? Doctor what?"--HellCat86 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware this page was lacking the suffix--Warlorddagaz 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub?[edit]

is this article really a stub - there is, as of yet, little more information relating to this christmas special, so it seems silly to have the stub decleration maring its beutiful complexion!!!--Warlorddagaz 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's "little more information", then yes, it probably is a stub.

Ridiculous and unsourced speculation?[edit]

There seems to be a lot of this going around, maybe it would be better to wait until they actually shoot the episode before we try to guess what's going to happen in it--71.247.107.146 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: speculation isn't allowed. But reports of published (eg. newspaper) reports and rumours are allowed, as long as it's clearly stated where they come from. If there's any unsourced drivel there, then feel free to remove it!--Keycard (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty section[edit]

See here for an example of the empty section being used. It is a standard on Wikipedia, stupid I'll admit, but a standard nonetheless.--Keycard (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the wikipedia guideline or policy stating such? I've looked and I can't find it. -- MisterHand 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not policy, in so much as it's formatting, there's no reason to have a plot summary sit there blank until December--71.247.240.95 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm trying to say. Why have an empty section that says "No information". That goes without saying by the fact that we don't have the section. -- MisterHand 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually never said that it's policy, I said that it's standard as my link shows. There is no point, you're right, but it's still the way things are done. That's how WP works: stupid people make stupid rules, but the bottom line is that everyone adheres to them since they're voted in democratically. I'm aware that there probably wasn't a vote for the plot sections, but it's convention. NB I've no idea what your comment about formatting has to do with anything.--Keycard (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because somebody's done it in another article doesn't make a "standard." I could find an example of an edit made where somebody blanked an article and replaced it with profanity, doesn't mean we can do it to all articles. -- MisterHand 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keycard - I think you're confusing MisterHand, who has no idea about why you are annoyed with khaosworks, and doesn't care either. His interest appears to be in policing the use of copyrighted images on Wikipedia in general and trying to limit the abuse of "fair use" as an excuse to reproduce these images. PaulHammond 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'll admit to being confused, in this particular case it's more to do with wondering why we need an empty section. -- MisterHand 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot is not fair use[edit]

If this screenshot is from another episode, it doesn't constitute fair use. See WP:FAIR for more information. -- MisterHand 17:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't find that bit on WP:FAIR, and it certainly doesn't seem logical. Please copy the relevant paragraph from the policy here. Thanks--Keycard (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 100% clear, so I've asked for clarification. At the very least, however, we need to make sure that the article isn't misleading (this isn't a screenshot from the actual episode), so I've changed the caption. -- MisterHand 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect and all that, who gives a damn? I mean, that frame will almost certainly appear in the episode anyway. Also, being mislead on which episode a screenshot originates from is not very important. What I wish to know is, what gave you the opinion, 100% clear or otherwise, that fair use rules out using pictures in this circumstance?--Keycard (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is a pretty tricky thing, and for screenshots, they need to accompany an article discussing the actual work. For instance, the screenshot in this article could be used in a discussion of Doomsday without issue. But it wouldn't be fair use to use in an article on wedding gowns. What's unclear (to me anyways), is if it's fair use to use a screenshot from one episode of a series in an article about another episode. And in issues of international copyright law, it's usually best to be safe rather than sorry. -- MisterHand 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, could I just point out that Khaosworks hasn't yet authorised these changes anyway, and will no doubt do something completely different when he gets here, so it's scarecely worth bothering with. He'll give his permission if he think's it's right, or he'll change it so it fits with his opinions. Just leave it!--Keycard (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are you talking about? You've lost me here, what does Khaosworks have to do with fairuse policy?--71.247.240.95 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does Khaosworks have to do with anything? He doesn't own these articles, and can't "authorize" anything. -- MisterHand 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply saying that Khaosworks usually changes everything, thinking that he owns the articles, and I can provide about 10 diffs to back this up (including this one, which took place over three edits. Completely changed).--Keycard (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the prize: just one edit. EDIT: oh, and another. Get my drift?--Keycard (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, people can see if the edits actually are an improvement or not. I leave it for others to decide. --03:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaosworks (talk • contribs)
No, he's just wrong. For example, an image from the preview trailer for an episode would be OK, yet technically it was from the previous episode.--Keycard (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to quit using Lupin's script to revert non-vandalistic edits (as long as we're throwing around unrelated tangents)--71.247.240.95 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? For that matter, Misty have fun in sump. Unless you are clear, I can't know what you mean. Who is Lupin, what play's he in, what reversions of non-vandalistic edits have I done?--Keycard (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing screenshot per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use -- MisterHand 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that all pictures are there merely to be ornamental, therefore it qualifies. However, I'm evidently wrong since MisterHand thinks I am.--Keycard (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, of course, to join the discussion at WP:FAIR, maybe you can convince enough people. -- MisterHand 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the legal niceties of this one, but from past Dr Who wiki precedent, upcoming episodes have been illustrated with screenshots from other places before - for example, until there were publicity stills available, I think a screen shot of Captain Jack from The Empty Child appeared on the Torchwood article. If it's true that using screenshots from other episodes infringes copyright, well, the copyright we're infringing is BBC or BBC Worldwide, and really, if we're helping to publicise their upcoming episode, will they ask Wikipedia to take that particular picture down? Personally, I would feel relaxed about it unless and until someone from the BBC does say something, or until after Christmas, when someone will put up a screenshot from the actual episode... PaulHammond 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. However, nobody else does. They think that I should be heading over to the Loony-Assylum Wikipedia.--Keycard (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm - I've had a look at the WP:FAIR page, and there's this mention:

  1. Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

in a list of blanket exceptions that are usually fair use. Presume the screen-shot was of the Bride in the TARDIS - and since she didn't play any dramatic role in Doomsday except as the lead in to the Christmas special, I personally would say this was fair use, even if in general it isn't on to use screenshots from a different episode just because it's a cooler picture of a Dalek, say. PaulHammond 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lack of consensus over at Wikipedia Talk:Fair use, so if the image is added back in, I'm not going to fight it. -- MisterHand 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kasey?[edit]

There's a (spoiler-ish) fan photo from recent Cardiff filming up at Outpost Gallifrey's News Page here, which clearly shows regular monster actor Paul Kasey. Should we add him to the cast section, and if so, how should we list him? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation[edit]

I know that the citation for the continuity announcement looks weird, but I think that's the way it's supposed to be, according to APA style (as seen here). Template:Cite video is based on APA style, but doesn't allow for citation of a specific episode, so I did it manually. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of citation, I could add a citation with link to the Outpost Gallifrey News Page's filming reports and photos, but there's a problem: if I link to the regular news page, after a while the entry with the photos and filming reports will slide off the bottom of the page. But the RSS link to that segment alone (which is normally a good permanent link) currently has broken links to the photos: [1]. Hmmm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The individual newsitem link should stay the same, I think: http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php#newsitemEEVFlpuAZlRGoArFjn Angmering 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That link will do until the entry falls off of the news page; I suppose that when it becomes outdated we can link to the news page archive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Assassin[edit]

Isn't this the first episode/serial since the Deadly Assassin to feature to Doctor without a companion? Unless you count the TV movie, in which case, it'd be the third adventure in Who history with no official companions.72.48.26.130 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(My opinion only, there's no citations for this). I would count the TVM as a "no companion" adventure. I would not count "The Runaway Bride" because Donna appears across multiple adventures and rides in the TARDIS...thus making her a companion. -- MisterHand 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Producer credit[edit]

Is there any evidence that Liggat is producing this? I was under the impression that she was producing one block of series three proper — taking responsibility around December time, if I recall the Love & Monsters MP3 commentary correctly. Angmering 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to change the credit to Collinson. If we hear otherwise it can be changed back easily enough, after all. Angmering 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas 07?[edit]

So, Army of Ghosts and Doomsday were both set in 2007, so does this mean that The Runaway Bride will be set Christmas 2007? And does this also mean that the 9th Doctor series was set in 2006?

The start of the 9th Doctor series was set in 2005, but when they returned in Aliens of London it was 2006, so short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but.

Fan consensus agrees with most of your points; we don't know which Christmas this one is set at - it may actually be 2006 again with the Doctor being careful not to interact with himself or Rose on the day. We'll have to see... Radagast 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope there's no continuity problems arising from this episode that will conflict with Out of Time being just a week ago, or Owen and Tosh kissing under mistletoe just yesterday...I guess I just hope that we stay away from Cardiff 100%--83.100.155.140 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it:
DW- Rose-2005
DW- The End of the World (end)-2005?
DW- Aliens of London/World War 3- 2006
DW- Boom Town-2006 (3 months after WW3)
DW- Parting of the Ways (some parts)-2006
DW- The Christmas Invasion- Xmas 2006
DW- New Earth (start)- 2007
DW- School Reunion- 2007
DW- Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel-2006 (parallel earth, time maybe different there)
DW- Love & Monsters-2007
DW- Army of Ghosts/Doomsday- 2007 (/2009- on parallel earth, time maybe different there)
~TORCHWOOD~ Contempory time inbetween Doomsday and Runaway Bride
TW- Everything Changes-2007 (after Doomsday- mentions of BoCW and has other elements previous who eps; ie:Dr's hand,Tosh,etc
TW- Day One-2007 (follows from last ep)
TW- The Ghost Machine-2007 (follows from last ep)
TW- Cyberwoman- 2007- (follows from last ep; mentions BoCW and cyber-conversion
TW- Small Worlds- 2007 (follows from last ep; mentions Jack's past)
TW- Countrycide-2007 (follows from last ep)
TW- Greeks Bearing Gifts (follows from last ep)
TW- They Keep Killing Suzie (follows from last ep;what Suzie mentions coming from the dark maybe be related to Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit
TW- Out of Time-2007 (follows from last ep, mentions it being, mentions the date--kind of, it's a week before Xmas)
TW- Combat-2007 (follows from last ep, maybe before or on the same week as Runaway Bride, 1 day before if Transmission dates count.) ~Follows on a few mins after Doomsday for the Doctor, but he probably travelled to Xmas 2007 without knowing (as he was surprised about it being Xmas, and Torchwood was the time in-between
DW- The Runaway Bride- Xmas 2007
TW-Captain Jack Harkness/End of Days- NY 2007/8 Involves Time Travel, but may have parts in 2007/8, probably after Runaway Bride.
SJA- pilot-NY 2007/8 Maybe at the same time as CJH/EoD, as they are both shown on the same day.
...DW-SERIES THREE- Contempory settings are probably in 2008
...SJA-SERIES ONE- Probably set in 2008
82.41.208.201 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC) forgot to login - User:TheDalek[reply]

Should we include...[edit]

something about the footage that was shown at the Doctor Who concert(i think). Here is a clip of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW_Fz1JiopM

Merging Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack[edit]

I must object to an article being made simply for a song like this; yes, it was previewed and everything, but it was composed for, and will primarily be used in, this episode.

Should it somehow become a breakaway pop hit and result in the release of the single or something, then we can revisit the issue; but at this point it's best covered by the infor being here. Radagast 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is on the Murray Gold sound track CD I think it would be most suitable in an article about the soundtrack CD, which I think we should make. There are quite a few TV soundtrack articles on Wikipedia already. --GracieLizzie 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created an article for the soundtrack, best to merge into that... Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?) 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to the new soundtrack article from a lot of others now, so Love Don't Roam is fairly redundant now. DELETE, DELETE!--Rambutan (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Series 3 trailer section...[edit]

Do we really need to include this? It's not really relevant to the episode. — FireFox (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2006

I'm agreed on that - I think the article would be better (and more relevant to the episode) without it. I'm not comfortable taking it out until we've discussed it a bit, though! Squeezeweasel 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik's[edit]

"an advertisement for Henrik's (a pun on the British store Fenwicks, whose logo it imitates)"

Have the producers actually said this? I thought it was supposed to be an amalgam of Harrods and Fenwick, with the logo being a sort of cross between the two real stores' logos. 217.155.20.163 13:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this seems correct to me. It uses Harrods' colours after all. DavidFarmbrough 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporial energy[edit]

In Dalek, Rose has apparently acquired some sort of energy charge by being a time traveller. Donna has been taken back to the origins of the Earth; logically she has the same energy and could attract further alien interest. --GwydionM 16:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

she might still have that ring the doctor gave her sailor cuteness-ready for love 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but so have Ian Chesterton, Barbara Wright, Jamie McCrimmon, Jo Grant, Sarah Jane Smith, Tegan Jovanka, countless others, including Adam and Jack Harkness. Martha Jones is about to get it too. Since Toshiko Sato's recent shift through time, she may have picked up on the energy too. Donna's probably not very special in the world of void stuff. Andral 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, Tosh used the Rift. That's kinda different I think. Doesn't the TARDIS feed off the Rift's energy? Invasion of the Bane explained the energy soaked up in the time vortex is called "artron energy".~ZytheTalk to me! 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor reference?[edit]

Anyone know if the company reference H.C.Clements is a reference to late Science Fiction writer Hal Clement? VJDocherty 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not blaspheme"... gag?[edit]

"Alternatively, it may be another double entendre — as with the "do not blaspheme" gag from The Parting of the Ways (2005)."

Huh? How is "do not blaspheme" a) a double entendre or b) a gag, and what relevance does it have to the human-being-optional thing? David 02:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit out of context. Rose commented that the Daleks, being built from human cells, are "half human" in Parting and the Daleks screech back "DO NOT BLAS-PHEME!", which struck many people as an in-joke to the whole fan controversy about the Doctor's allegedly half-human heritage. I've tried to clarify the note. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhh yeah! Thanks Khaosworks David 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farther than he's ever been before?[edit]

When the Doctor takes Donna back to Earth's formation, he says he's going farther back than he's ever gone before. He's been farther back, I'm sure of it. I at least recall the TARDIS going back to the big bang in The Edge of Destruction and the beginning of Castrovalva. Andral 07:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn those continuity errors.  ;) DonQuixote 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was just wondering if anyone else thought it worth mentioning in the continuity section. Andral 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In both those cases he wasn't actually intending to go there (and in the end I don't think they did anything there anyway).

Web Sites on Mobile Phone[edit]

I've gone through frame by frame and identified these web sites that appear on the mobile phone when the Doctor uses his sonic screwdriver:

Whether or not this is worth adding to the article is up to you. Kindeditor 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can identify a couple: the one listed beneath Deffry Vale is Mickey's "Who is Doctor Who" website, and the one below the British Rocket Group is Boy*d Upp, part of the Jamie Kane game (as several of the others are). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rambutan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC). [note from Rambutan: Sorry!][reply]
Is this going to go on the site or is it just out of interest?--Wiggstar69 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too trivial. With some episodes we could perhaps peek down Martha's blouse and see the maker of her bra, its size and the washing instructions. But we don't. --Tony Sidaway 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too fancruft-y to be included in the article. Andy5421 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous incarnation?[edit]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that I saw Christopher Eccleston in the trailer before the end credits of this episode. He was running (if it was him) down some metal corridor. Was it? totb 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgiven - here's the trailer and no sign of CE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcvSNy2lmyU David 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm still not entirely convinced. 25 seconds into the trailer a man, in a 9th-Dr-styled leather jacket, grabs Martha and is holding a gun. Its bugging because it looks so much like him, but it probably isn't otherwise we'd have herd something buy now - and they wouldn't put a spoiler like that in the trailer, would they? Think outside the box 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same shot is in the BBCi trailer, and it's definitely not him. David 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for your help. Think outside the box 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan theories[edit]

I've removed the following two unsourced paragraphs from two different sections.

From Cast notes:

  • Depending on interpretation, the Doctor's comment regarding humanity being "optional" to him can be read as confirming a popular fan hypothesis that the Eighth Doctor's controversial comment about being "half-human on his mother's side" (Doctor Who, 1996) applied uniquely to that regeneration, rather than to the Doctor in general. It may also be a sly aside to the audience about that controversy, like the Daleks crying, "Do not blaspheme!" to Rose's comment about them being "half-human" from The Parting of the Ways (2005).

From Continuity:

  • The Doctor tells Donna that his pockets are also "bigger on the inside", finally confirming a long-held fan theory as to how the Doctor (particularly the Fourth Doctor) over the years managed to keep so many things in his pockets.

These are basically just bits of fan cruft, original research. whatever. --Tony Sidaway 07:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. So something that is clearly stated in the episode is original research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 April 2007

Both are references to fan hypotheses in the text of the article, linked without a reliable source to actual events within the episode. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor says that his pockets are bigger on the inside. What do you have a problem with? Do you need confirmation that there was a long-held fan theory as to how the Doctor kept so many things in his pockets?

I have no problem with the fact that he said this in the episode. We don't seem to have a reliable source saying that this was a reference to a fan theory, rather than simply an example of the snappy humor that characterizes recent Doctor Who series. The quip is an obvious enough one, and Doctor Who is a work of fiction. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should also be a source to the claim that this is a long-held fan theory. Remember: forums and blogs are not reliable sources. -- MisterHand 17:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tag[edit]

I've added the spoiler tag (which I notice someone has completely made ineffectual and declawed) because an editor has added the identity of "Mr. Saxon" which is a significant spoiler considering Series 3 isn't even completed in the UK, has only just started in Canada, and won't air in the US until July (with presumably the revelation of Saxon's identity to follow sometime in September). An alternative is to remove the spoiler, but I don't want to read it (I managed to avoid reading the complete sentence so I avoided being spoiled) so someone who already knows the outcome should do it.68.146.8.46 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My approach with these Doctor Who serials is to say that spoiler tags on all episodes younger than two years (and this one qualifies easily) are reasonable. The Saxon identity is a matter of curiosity or trivia in this episode, but it does take on more significance as the third series progresses. --Tony Sidaway 04:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast dates in different countries[edit]

We appear to be building a list of every single date for this episode's debuts in different countries (the US, Canada, New Zealand etc). Ought we to be doing this? This has the potential for being a long list. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 13:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the version on BBCAmerica (at least currently) is several minutes shorter than the original version, having made room for commercial breaks. A good chunk is accounted for by the omission of the "coming soon" trailer at the end, but as with "Christmas Invasion", some actual content would have to go. Do we know just what? Is this relevant enough for inclusion?Jeff (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not list the airing date in every country for a single epiosde. This is usually reserved for the premiere of the pilot on the TV shows article. — Edokter • Talk • 01:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "commentary" :
    • {{cite web|url=http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/xx-commentary.mp3|title=The Runaway Bride commentary|author=David Tennant|coauthors=Julie Gardner|accessdate=2007-01-02|format=MP3}}
    • {{cite web|url=http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/xx-commentary.mp3|title=The Runaway Bride commentary|author=David Tennant|coauthors=Julie Gardner|accessdate=2007-02-18|format=MP3}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

Can someone please edit the synopsis. Donna's fiance is apparently Lance Bennett, a fellow employee of HC Clements. Yet the summary refers to "H.C. Clements" as both a company, and an individual with whom she falls in love. Also, if the wedding was interrupted, is it likely the reception would have gone ahead?JohnC (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donna and Lance fell in love at their work - H.C. Clements, which was owned by H.C. Clements! And yes, the reception did go ahead in this story. I believe it is fine, although may be confusing to others. Whoniverse93 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Transport[edit]

What was that thing the Doctor, Donna, and Lance riding whilst in the tunnel? I was hoping this would have been mentioned and linked in the synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.199.223 (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Segway.Jeff (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about editing that paragraph, but I can't get past a "secret basement" (that's what they said) that nonetheless has a button on the elevator/lift panel. But yeah, after unlocking the locked button to the secret basement (still sounds weird), when they emerged into that hallway, the Doctor noticed ("Ah! Transport!") some very conveniently-placed Segways. To be fair, in that kind of situation, that once would have been served by a golf cart, one frequently sees Segways these days. You see them a lot at shopping malls.Jeff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Runaway_Bride_(Doctor_Who)&oldid=1205800633"