# Talk:Flesh and Stone

It should be different from the one of the previous episode "The Time of Angels". Alistair (Simon Dutton) died in the crash of the Byzantium and some of the clerics were killed by the Angels. Hektor (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, we cannot infer changes in the cast list from events in the preceding episode. Moffat is in large part playing games with our notions of mortality by resurrecting dead characters such as Bob, and we cannot infer the permanent departure of any cast member in this second part. If an external source exists for the cast list, use that. Tasty monster (=TS ) 11:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the link between River Songs comment regarding the handcuffs "you, me, handcuffs . . . must it always end this way?" & the handcuffs she had in the 'Forest of the Dead' episode that she used to restrain the Doctor when she gave her life to save his?  Swampy 138.130.158.92 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, unless we have a source. Besides, that hadn't happened for River so it could only be a meta-reference (probably the wrong term, but you know what I mean). U-Mos (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the handcuffs comment is noteworthy, but if those are the same handcuffs she used/will use (I'd forgotten about that), I'd say that's worthy of a mention. David (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No because for River Song 'Forest of the Dead' will happen after these events.  It's like all the hints implying the man Song killed was the Doctor himself--unless there is a source we can't really do anything with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a clever observation. I was wondering myself if it was a reference to anything. Even if one cannot say that "it is a reference to...", I do not see any reason why one could not mention the fact that she mentioned handcuffs and that handcuffs had been used in the previous episode. --Mlewan (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought this page was supposed to be open for anyone to make a valid contribution - why was mine deleted?  The whole thing would be a paradox if the Angel Bob ceased to exist?  Still, if it gives you fun to be a sad little censor you got for it.  I know, delete this entry too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk • contribs) 

Seriously, you have no idea why what you wrote is not suitable for an ecyclopedia? Oh dear. U-Mos (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL - you deleted my criticism of your actions!  Oh dear.  Don't worry I will never post on here again.  You are safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.104 (talk • contribs) 

Why is anybody allowed to delete other people's messages in the first place? Even though it's not a forum, the principle of messaging still applies ... messages are there for all to read and make use of. Futile Crush (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
This IP's main complaint is about his content being removed from the article (I think), which is obviously nothing to do with messages. I deleted one message of his from this talkpage because it was nothing but a personal attack, and it is permissible to remove such material. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 13:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Up until now we've only ever seen the Angels stationary ... is it worth mentioning the one scene where we see the angels turn their heads and move in real time? Futile Crush (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The appearance of moving Angels is rather novel. Previously, all movement had been implied, grandma's footsteps-style, or else by off-screen actions such as the "duck" scene at the start of Blink. I think we should probably look for sources and write a brief section on the depiction of the Angels. Some of the more savvy reviewers may pick up on the changes in a way that provides verifiability. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
How would one go about finding sources? I ask only because I'm new to editing on Wikipedia; I've never endeavoured to create articles as such because I'm not sure how to gather sources, save for a perfunctory Google search. Futile Crush (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome! Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a good start; Google News can be good for finding possible references, but be careful, because it also searches blogs and other unreliable commentary. Hope this helps—I'll have a look too, later, if I get time. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've slipped in a small and inconsequential note referring to the movement of the angels, but again wasn't that sure what to look for insofar as sources are concerned ... it's there if anyone wants to sourcificate it :). Futile Crush (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The key date given in the episode, 26 June 2010, is when something important is going to happen .... isn't that also the real-life date on which the final episode of the current season is to be broadcast (UK)? Won't that be Episode 13, on Saturday 26 June?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.163 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC) 

Unless eurovision means a week is skipped then yes it is. WP:OR without a source saying it's deliberate though (would they have known this date when filming?), and even then it would be better suited to the currently non-existent article for the June 26 episode. U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It was most likely added in post-production, once the schedule was sorted out. Sceptre (talk)

How is the picture that is currently in use any different  to the one I previously uploaded?(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doctor_Who_-_Flesh_And_Stone.jpg). The picture I uploaded to The Time of Angels seems perfectly acceptable and, hence, is still there. Whats the matter with this one? shokuwarrior

The image currently in use has been nominated for deletion too. You almost certainly need to read WP:OSE. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 22:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And the The Time of Angels image has been nominated for deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how one would add this, but when the Doctor is telling Amy to remember (shortly after he walks off with River and Octavian), this appears to be a different "version" of him based on the fact that he is wearing his tweed jacket. I don't know how I would source this or even if you could add it to the article, but it seems to be that it's clear enough to be postable, I can't imagine it's a contiuity error. --86.144.156.246 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough! ¦-TreasuryTag?person of reasonable firmness-¦ 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(OK; someone undid the archiving for some bizarre reason, but since the answer to the OP's point is, "No," it seems unlikely that the discussion can continue.) ¦-TreasuryTag?draftsman-¦ 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There's no need for imagination, in that scene the Doctor is clearly wearing his jacket, which he lost earlier in the story and is never portrayed as wearing again, it's either a continuity error or a plot point.

It's a confused plot as it is, but seeing as the Angels never actually existed due to the effects of the Crack, it's easy to assume that as a result his jacket was never taken..blah, blah blah...who knows? Only Moffat. magnius (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello source talking about this http://www.behindthesofa.org.uk/2010/05/dont-look-now.html U-Mos (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Neil Perryman may be doing a PhD on Doctor Who, but that piece is just a bit of fannish burbling. I don't think we do anybody any favors if we include such speculation in the article. The series arc will develop in the fullness of time, and so we'll have something to write about if this turns out to be more than a fan theory. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious  that the "jacketed Doctor" reassuring Amy is him from later in his timeline; which we will see in a later episode, probably the series finale. Of course this is OR, so we can't say that in the article. However, we can mention the not-missing jacket, and we can mention what he says (which refers to "11th Hour") under Continuity. It seems excessively puritanical to omit this because we don't have an RS saying that it is significant, (though it's rife in online reviews, blogs, etc.) when plenty of quite trivial details are mentioned otherwise. Leave a small mention of the bare facts as shown in the episode as I have made and you can hold the line against rampant speculation.Barsoomian (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it "obvious"?  It could equally be from earlier in his timeline...or a host of other things, including a continuity error.  DonQuixote (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To be frank, Wikipedia doesn't give a damn about what seems "obvious" to you. Mentioning the jacket is clearly intended for the readers to infer either mistake or intention on behalf of the producers, neither of which is appropriate without a reliable source.  (You can always wait a few weeks to see if your suspicion is correct, but it can't go in articles until demonstrated.) ¦-TreasuryTag?sundries-¦ 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I DID NOT put my suspicion the text. (Not the text as it was, anyway, I agreed with an earlier edit that removed speculation.) I ONLY had observed facts, no different, or equally "unsourced", as any other facts mentioned in the plot summary.  You are reacting as if I was sneakily trying to call someone a child molestor. Why do I need a reliable source to mention plot elements? There are 1183 words of "Plot" currently, with NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE cited. Maybe you should delete all that in case someone makes an inference from it?  Barsoomian (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I am of the opinion that this was not an error and will be revisited (and therefore eligible for inclusion here) later in the series. But I deleted it because to mention the jacket is either pointing out an error, or pointing out an unsourced inference. Neither will do. As for the "remember what I told you when you were 7" bit, there's nothing really to say about it. It is not known what dialogue it refers to, it could be as non-notable as "trust me", "you're not scared of anything" or "give me 5 minutes", something more plot-significant such as "something I'm missing, out of the corner of my eye" or "two parts of the universe that should never have touched", or out of left field is "you're scottish, fry something". Or it could just be a distraction to stop Amy from opening her eyes. See what I mean? It can't be linked to anything. I apologise for not explaining my actions in the edit summary. U-Mos (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean "pointing out an error will not do"? I didn't say there was an error.  (I don't think there was.) And "when you were seven" is what he said, verbatim. She was seven in "Eleventh Hour". We don't know the significance of it; so why not just neutrally report what was said? If you insist that can't be mentioned, then I give up. Have fun deleting this every other day when someone reads it and wonders why the scene isn't even mentioned. (Why isn't it even in the "Plot"?)Barsoomian (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As a fan I find this kind of speculation (and did I mention that I find it quite plausible?) irresistible. As a Wikipedian I'm saying we can wait and see, and meanwhile writing about such speculation is very much against our policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The speculation was only here. Not in the article. For the record, this is the text that was deleted:
After leaving Amy in the forest alone, the Doctor reappears to tell her to "Remember what I said to you when you were seven". (That is, in "The Eleventh Hour".) He is wearing a jacket, and in the previous and next scenes is without a jacket.
That's not "speculative". What is the point of a "Continuity" section if not to mention things like this? Anyway, do as you like, obviously I'm not in tune with the ethos here. Barsoomian (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I count four of us (myself, U-Mos, Tony and DonQ) who think that it is speculative. We are all experienced editors—by no means always right, but I genuinely suggest that you accept our advice. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been editing here for a few years too. But you outnumber me or anyone else who comes here individually, so you have "won". (By the way, "I strongly advise you" sounds rather like a threat. At best, it's patronising. Don't do that.) In your desire to avoid any appearance of "speculation" you have determined to erase any mention of that scene at all. Ironic considering the Big Bad in this show.Barsoomian (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As you wish. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 23:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You've got the numbers. You win. Barsoomian (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The continuity section isn't there for noting internal continuity, but for relationships between an episode and others (both preceding episodes and later ones, so it would be perfectly in order to refer to Ten's adventures in Pompeii in the article about One's encounter with Nero).  Quite often attentive fans will pick up on stuff early, for instance when the pattern of the crack in the wall appeared on an oscilliscope screen in the TARDIS at the end of The Eleventh Hour. In such cases, I say, where there is doubt about the significance we should wait and see.  He sometimes wears a jacket, he sometimes doesn't. Unlike the pattern of the crack in the wall, this could be a simple continuity error, of no significance to the story. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"relationships between an episode and others" Which is EXACTLY why "When you were 7" belongs there. "He sometimes wears a jacket...of no significance" -- now you're being disingenuous. The Doctor had just escaped from the Angels, leaving one holding his jacket, a scene that was lingered over. This is very clearly a deliberate clue. Moffatt has made such things a motif. And yes, of course this is OR, but FFS, the facts can be mentioned in the article without going into speculation. Which is all I suggested.Barsoomian (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll give you one thing, the mention of her seven-year-old self could do with a brief mention in the plot section I think. I will make that change. But he still does not make direct reference to a part of The Eleventh Hour, so there is nothing to say in the continuity section. U-Mos (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You think that mentioning that Amelia was 7 in "The Eleventh Hour" can't be mentioned? You are setting a very high standard of proof for this scene, one you do not apply to anything else in the "Plot". I repeat: You have NO SOURCES for Plot at all. Address yourself to that if you are so eager to be beyond reproach.Barsoomian (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Er—the episode itself is the source for the plot. The Angels were sucked into the Crack, etc. It's simplistic and direct summary of what unequivocally happened. Do you have any specific examples you would like to contest? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 23:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't contest it. My point is that YOU don't. So why do you contest so vigorously a simplistic and direct summary of the "When you were seven" scene?Barsoomian (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No SPECIFIC link to the eleventh hour is made. U-Mos (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If you are going to be so literal, there are no "SPECIFIC" references to ANY specific episodes, ever. Only to events that we can associate with them. So you might as well remove all "Continuity" sections in every episode article if you use that criterion. However, I suspect that there will be a lot of "crossing the timestreams" in the finale of this series, dropping into this and other episode events.  "When you were seven" may refer to a scene in the finale. But it must be contemporary with "The Eleventh Hour" as that's when Amy was seven.  It really seems to me that you are bending over backwards to avoid anything that might be speculative. I think we all know that this scene has arc significance (though not from a "reliable source") and so should be MENTIONED in "Continuity", even if we can't know the SPECIFIC details of how it fits in yet. Just simply and factually, without speculation, describe the scene. But really, and finally now, I withdraw from this. If you haven't got my point now you never will. Barsoomian (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's hardly a case of me not getting your point! "I suspect... must be..." there can be no inferences. It does not reference the eleventh hour, because we can't attribute it to any moment in that episode. U-Mos (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that there's there's little more to be gained by us participating in this "debate", U-Mos... there's a clear consensus not to allow the material, and if he adds it, it can be removed. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 05:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to leave the field gracefully,  but I'm pretty offended at the way you keeping alleging that I'm some kind of idiot, troll or vandal. You didn't use those words, but that's very obviously (sorry, more OR) what you imply behind the smarmy, patronising bureaucratic acronyms. Since you like those so much, what applies here is WP:OWN. Enjoy your fiefdom, I'll leave it to you, as long as you don't make such remarks about me again. 07:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
One niggle: implores. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. That's the danger of trying to use better vocabulary for you. U-Mos (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me get this straight - Pointing out a particular scene is speculation? It's speculation that the Cleric Bob and the other rear guard are dead, yet in the previous article the editors list them as being killed by the Angels. Why is that not deleted as speculation as it is not scene on screen? What I'm saying is listing a scene and pointing out that the Doctor is wearing a coat when in the prior and next scene he is not wearing it is not speculation but observation. Writing this is a future, past, twin, imposter, etc would be speculation. Same as with the clerics, we are assuming that Angel Bob killed them, but we don't know as we were not shown it so writing it as such is speculation. Plus, as Angel Bob never existed, he could never had killed the clerics or the bishop, but that's speculation until we see those characters again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.12.99.118 (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The speculation is your assumption that it is an error. Or, depending on your viewpoint, your assumption that it is significant. We have no reliable sources for either idea. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
So, should I edit the "The Time of Angels" article and remove all references of Angel Bob killing the clerics? That's an assumption made in the article not supported by anything on scene except for an audio transmission by Angel Bob. I'm agreeing that stating the jacketed Doctor is a future Doctor is speculation. However, he was a jacketed Doctor bookended by two scenes on a non-jacketed Doctor. That's no more trivial than pointing out that the Angels kept the Doctor's jacket (which would have been a major plot point had the sonic screwdriver stayed in the pocket). By the way, this is wikipedia and not a fan wiki so I understand having a higher standard. I'm just pointing out that if one editor is holding a strong line about speculation, that there's major speculation occurring in the previous episode's article. PS: There's going to be issues with this as there's supposedly (don't have the reference) five "hidden clues" being sprinkled into various episodes. Four of them seem to be: Cracks in time, Silence, Fairy Tale references, Future Doctor but that's speculation on my part.--Nuke-Marine (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you talking about the recent edit that began "There is an apparent production continuity error that might actually be continuity related to a future episode."? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A simple production continuity error wouldn't itself be notable, and assuming that is was an important seeded plot point is at present just original research.  This discussion really serves no purpose, we just have to wait and see. magnius (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but it's not "simple". His hairstyle is different, he is wearing a jacket with his sleeves rolled up rather than a shirt with the sleeves down, and a black watch rather than a gold one.  That's quite a major continuity error. Orias (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems the original poster was correct, it wasn't a continuity error, it was the Doctor from the episode "The Big Bang" giving a message to Amy as he was travelling backwards in time. Could someone clever add this to the continuity section or other relevant section? Ta, Swampy 58.164.27.108 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Already there. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/kareng_official/status/13455329783
43 complaints, though I expect we can find an alternative source to Ms Smoochy herself! Tasty monster (=TS ) 09:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That link is officially dead. What were people saying? --Futile Crush (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It was (apparently) Karen Gillen's twitter persona, and in particular a tweet where she mentioned that the BBC had had 43 complaints after Amy Pond tried to kiss the Doctor. Being Twitter, that's really all there was to it! TFOWRpropaganda 21:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Really? I loved that bit! Futile Crush (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Danger of falling into off-topic territory: totally! You have to wonder who complained. It was a kiss for goodness' sake! TFOWRpropaganda 22:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In "Blink", the Weeping Angels are supposedly weeping while actually hiding their eyes so they do not end up looking at each other. In The Time of Angels and Flesh and Stone, however - correct me if I'm wrong - the angels don't seem to have any problem with looking at each other. The Blink angels had the ability to send someone back in time when they touched them ... an angel grabbed the doctor's jacket, though, and the Doctor stayed rather well put.
Is this a simple continuity error, or is there a reason why the Time of Angels angels don't die when they look at each other or transport anyone back in time? Futile Crush (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As the continuity section for Time of Angels says, the angels are explained to be killing people to use their voices to communicate and gain more victims. As for looking at each other, it's not really clear if they do. It took a fair bit of trickery to get them to do so in Blink after all. U-Mos (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 15:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for articles about television episodes to contain, in their infobox, relevant images which are not actually screenshots from the work in question? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note – please do not have threaded discussions in your individual subsection. Please only do that in the subsection Further discussion.


### Comments from involved editors
#### Comments from involved User:TreasuryTag
It seems to be the position of Edokter [1] [2] that the inclusion of an image in the infobox of a TV-episode-article, where the image is not actually a screenshot from that actual episode, is "misleading," even where there is clear relevance (as in this case, where it is a convenient free image of the episode's primary antagonists, whereas a screenshot of them would clearly fail NFCC 1 since there is a free image available).Interestingly, Edokter appears to have no problem with the image being included within the body of the article [3] – though I fail to see how their presence is any less "misleading" there. This seems like pretty much a no-brainer to me, and I would welcome outside views. Preferably outside views which rely on reasoning a little more concrete than, "That's what the consensus has been for a long time so get stuffed," which seemed to be a significant part of Edokter's arguments over at WT:WHO. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


#### Comments from involved User:Edokter
This discussion does not revolve around "free vs. non-free". It deals with placement of images in the article according to the Manual of style and the manual of style as followed by the WikiProject Doctor Who. My position is clear: The infobox is ment for episode- and production related information, and the image is not production related, because it was not produced by the BBC. This has been a long-standing consensus in WikiProject Doctor Who, and probably in WikiProject Television in general. I started a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, and found six other editors agreeing with that assesment. I will also repeat that I have no problem with the image per-se, but it has no place in the infobox; non-episode related images should be placed inside the article.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


#### Comments from involved User:Cameron Scott
It seems to be the position of Edokter that the inclusion of an image in the infobox of a TV-episode-article, where the image is not actually a screenshot from that actual episode, is "misleading, That is also my position and I agree with Edokter's reasoning and that was the reason for my (as you described it 'one of the dumbest edits I have ever seen in my life') removing it from the infobox). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


### Comments from uninvolved editors
#### Comments from uninvolved Masem
The infobox (across WP) is a tool that is used to quickly summarize the details of the topic at hand; in this case, it is a quick reference for the episode. As such, information presented in the box should represent the episode accurately and precisely to make the infobox effective. This is where the allowance for a screenshot (that otherwise meets NFC) that uniquely captures the episode is important as it is a visual index for that episode. While this episode does have Weeping Angels, they are not unique to this episode, and thus a shot of them from context outside the episode is not appropriate. Within the body, yes, and this suggests that if there is to be an infobox picture, it should be something other than something that involves the Angels to provide more clarity. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


### Further discussion
I would be greatful if Masem (talk · contribs) could explain how a completely setting-neutral image of a Weeping Angel does not "represent the episode accurately and precisely" – ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There are at least three episodes that have Weeping Angels.  The stand-alone image of the Angel, given no other information on the page, does not provide unique identification of that episode as it could represent any of the three.  Contrast this with the image used for Blink which includes an Angel (narrows down to 3) and Sally (narrows that down to 1).  The infobox image should be a unique identifier of that work. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
But almost any shot of the Weeping Angels from this episode would (a)violate the NFCC since we have a free one available, and (b)be virtually indistinguishable from the Angels of other episodes, since they are all more or less identical. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No-one is saying we need to have a non-free image in the infobox at any price. The heart of the matter is if a non-episode related image can be in the infobox. The answer is no.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, you think that a picture of a Weeping Angel is "non-episode related" in this case? And secondly, your closing words, "the answer is no," is precisely the pigheaded and completely inaccurate attitude I complained of above. So I just won several small bets with myself. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not alone in that opinion. If that earns my the honorary title of being a "pighead", so be it.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Aha. So you admit that it is an opinion. So next time, perhaps avoid using such definite and final phrases as "the answer is no," would be my advice. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Other things happened in this episode than just the Weeping Angels.  They are not the only unique elements of this first part of this story.  The question, at that point, is asking from NFC if any of them merit an NFC image due to being necessary to understand the work.  There's a few possibilities depending on what reviewers said, such as the maze establishing shot once they get the gravity globe lit.  I do understand that previously there was the Angel coming out of the screen as a shot but that was deleted because of the fact that, as a still, it was freely replaceable with text, but that doesn't mean one could not review said reviews and see if more discussion on the horror aspects of that scene may support the image. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Just a comment, if the picture is of the costume used in this episode, then it should be okay, although it should probably be mentioned that it's a costumed used in the episode.  See Marco Polo (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Marco Polo uses a still from the actual episode, so I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is that it's not a screen capture, so it's not from the episode itself.  It's a shot showing off the costumes. DonQuixote (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting really confused now - as far as I am aware, that image is a shot from the episode or at the least the production itself - it's not a random shot of a marco polo costume taken at a museum some time later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
By definition, "from the episode" is a screen capture.  "From the production" is another thing entirely, and one into which the Weeping Angel fits.  I'm saying that if it has anything to do with production, which includes anything to do with the costume department, it should be fine because it's "from the production" of the episode. DonQuixote (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That is not what I ment; "from the production" means anything directly related to the production of that episode, such as pictures taken from the set during shooting of that episode, not images taken somewhere else.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
To quote, "anything directly related to the production of that episode"--which includes costumes.  I'm sorry if my first comment wasn't as clear as I would have liked it to have been, but what I was trying to say was that it's not unreasonable to use an image that shows something involved with the production of the episode, such as cast, filming, costumes, etc: see Marco Polo (Doctor Who) for such a usage.  If the image was of something like a wax statue, then it would be inappropriate as it had nothing to do with the production.  DonQuixote (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead was tagged as too short for the article.  Leads properly summarize the article, and, other than the plot section, the reception section is the largest.  The comments in the reception section are generally positive, with the exception of people questioning the propriety of Amy trying to seduce the doctor.  That that choice "raised eyebrows" is idiomatic English - but I am not wedded to it.  Please feel free to change it to some other phrase you find appropriate.
Merely reverting the edit is highly inappropriate.  It's not collaboration - it's edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flesh and Stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 03:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I shall conduct this review. -- Matthew RD 03:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


### Criteria
Well written:  Pass
Sources:  Pass
Broadness in coverage:  Pass
Neutral:  Pass
Stability:  Pass
Images:  Pass
Virtually spotless, a pass. -- Matthew RD 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flesh and Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100518204446/http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/05/doctor-who-season-5-episode-5-%E2%80%9Cflesh-and-stone%E2%80%9D/ to http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/05/doctor-who-season-5-episode-5-%E2%80%9Cflesh-and-stone%E2%80%9D/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)