Talk:The Stolen Earth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Crossover?

Does this actually count as a cross-over? The characters do exist in the same universe. Isn't a cross-over two different universes meeting - like The Eastenders universe meeting the Doctor Who one. 129.215.149.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC).

A crossover doesn't have to involve separate universes. It can also occur between a show and its spin-offs, such as these two episodes. Please see Fictional_crossover#Spin-offs. Ophois (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Errors

i think that should be moved or something as im pretty sure there was some machine or something that Davros had that keep everything on earth normal despite being light years away or something. Pro66 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Or something. Are you suggesting that something be introduced to the article about the scientific absurdity of the episode? Well, if you can find a reliable source talking about it, then it can be included. Otherwise it's original research. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what Pro66 is referring to. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah — thanks for the context. Not sure why I missed that. Anyway, both my point and Pro66's point stand — there was some throwaway technobabble about why the Earth didn't freeze or anything, and also unless a reliable source mentions the scientific absurdity of the episode (in more detail than saying "it's scientifically absurd", which I think some of the reviewers did), it's original research for us to talk about it. Which I'm sure is why thedemonhog removed it. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The episode did establish why this didn't happen. (atmospheric shell) 129.215.149.97 (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

atmospheric shell, thats what i was talking about :) Pro66 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Map Links

Can I just ask the question, why are these map links in the artical? You click on the link and it shows a map of the whole world with a red dot covering the UK. Everyone knows that the present day Doctor Who takes place in England so why do we need a map to show it? I could understand if the map was just of the UK, but with one dot covering the entire country, it seems a bit pointless.194.81.189.20 (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Might help for Americans. The map links in the production section, at least, show filming locations. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I find the links disruptive and unhelpful. Too much detail. If I really wanted to know more about shooting locations, I'd dig for the info. Ronstew (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the purpose of a featured article to be comprehensive; leaving out details may jeopardise that. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an ecyclopedia to be comprehensive. The key is notability. Important facts should be there, but endless detail detracts. Ronstew (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is. Featured article criteria. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but let's look at the whole document you cite, Sceptre: It says a feature article is "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." But, point 4 reads: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." Now, that's is not what I mean by comprehensive, (perhaps I am confusing comprehensive with exhaustive), but let's stick with that definition. Map links to shooting locations are not "major facts or detail," but are "unnecessary detail." Again, it is easy to look this stuff up on a map for a person who is particularly interested, but the typical reader is not. BTW, I am a Canadian, so I can speak to your argument about Americans. We on this side of the pond are not likely to follow those map links.

I dislike the map links because they interrupt the flow when I am reading the article, and add little value. Ronstew (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but the map links can be made into footnotes. DonQuixote (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Per WP:LEAD there should be no more than 4 paragraphs that summarize the article. Given the size of the paragraphs in this article, 4 of them would be extremely long. This makes me assume that these lead paragraphs are a bit too verbose, and probably need to be trimmed and summarized to be more succinct.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is a guideline. If an article is helped by slightly deviating from a guideline, then it should deviate. In this case, it helped it to become a featured article. — Edokter • Talk • 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is around 77kb long. Compared to other featured articles of the same length, it's just about right. I wouldn't object until it filled more than a screen at 1440*900. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Caption

I've been trying to shorten up the longest caption on an image I've ever seen. Rose cradles a dying Doctor. A scene written by Russell T Davies as a pastiche of romance fiction, and described by David Tennant as a "bitter scene of high emotion". This sentance doesn't make sense? Maybe change it to "Doctor, in a"? The caption is very long, and I don't see any other caption give the position of the scene in the episode, the plot section reveals he was shot by a Dalek, and Davies and Tennant's job positions can be seen on the same screen, just to the left. I see someone's idea was to reveal production information and cite it, and that information is preserved in the caption by my proposed edit. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Captions don't have to be short; for fair use images, they need to prove critical commentary as well. I think we're losing some, or at least compromising the fluidity of the prose, by changing the caption. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Captions states they should be brief, ideally two short sentances. They are pretty long sentances right now. Sentances containing redundancies of Davies and Tennant's jobs. The critical commentary is completely intact in my proposed edit, I cut nothing that relates to commentary. The purpose of the caption is identified as illustrating the romance and emotion of the scene for Rose and the Doctor, which would be the same no matter who shot him. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It provides context to the episode. Besides, WP:CAPTIONS is advisory, not instructional, and there isn't any reason why we can't have a fifty word caption. Especially for a fair-use image. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, when I dismiss guidelines without offering another guideline to support my counter-position I get my ass handed to me in the discussion. The fair-use argument is not weakened by the caption not being full of redundant information, not while it's got original information and a cite. It's safe. Context that's provided by the article is a flimsy arguement for ignoring a guideline. But I have yet to see someone add a "maintained" tag without asserting ownership like this. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DWM reviews?

Is there room for Doctor Who Magazine's reviews of the episode? I don't see a "fan reaction" section and I'm not sure it holds the same weight as the mainstream newspaper reviews in the Critical Reception section but I love Gary Gillatt's description in DWM 403 of TSE/JE as "the most thrilling that can happen to a Doctor Who fan short of Tom Baker knocking on your front door and asking to watch Part Three of The Deadly Assassin." There's also Dave Owen's review in issue 399. It might help to balance out the (IMO excessive) coverage of Stephen James Walker's review.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've said quite a few times: SJW's review is very long, and we have to give it justice, you know? I've been kind of wary of DWM reviews as they are part-advertisement, but, then again, DWM does recognise the faults of the programme. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it's long (I have the book too), but I still feel it could be a paragraph or two shorter. I would also guess that DWM has a much higher readership than Telos Publishing's books. Gillatt and Owen are as prominent in fandom as Walker is and their views should be mentioned as well as as his.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DWC quote in caption

Confidential Cutdown subtitles

The correct quote is "It's a moment of high emotion for all involved", not "a bitter moment of high emotion". The clip is easily found on YouTube.

Kateorman (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I've double and triple checked the quote: Tennant says "a bitter moment of high emotion". Subtitles are known to deviate from the source material and aren't really reliable. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He clearly says "a bitter moment of high emotion". The fact that Time After Time got put in my head three times is indicative that I checked it the first time. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear that as "It's a moment of high emotion... for all involved". Not entirely sure where the bitter part comes from? Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

He pauses, then says "bitter". It's quickly said, but it is said. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We are risking getting a little bit too pedantic here, but I have listened to it over and over and I am almost certain he says "It's a [pause] It's a moment of high emotion [pause] for all involved" Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That is how I hear it too... (as just a pause) But seriously, WP:OR people. I removed the quote. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can it not just be left as "DT described the moment as having "high emotion"." ? --MASEM (t) 02:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Or find the official subtitles. Prodego ^talk 02:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to concede defeat on this one. I had to listen to it about five or six times, but you're right; it is "it's a moment of high emotion". Sceptre ^(talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)