# Talk:Love & Monsters (Doctor Who)

What's the source for this title? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OG forums report that it is/will be in the English newspapers, and Shaun Lyon has said that the title jibes with what he has been told on the sly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It is from Shaun Lyon, owner of Outpost Gallifrey. Here is a direct link of where he (more or less) confirms the title http://www.gallifreyone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124269#post21242 . He says "The title was printed in a UK newspaper and will be in today's news update. I have no idea if it's 100% confirmed or not... it does, however, roughly gibe with with a title I'd heard about for this episode earlier (with the word "love" being used in that one as well as in this new title)."  He has also put up a "Love and Monsters" section on his forum --Bingo99 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ta.  As I said, it's a great title — I just wanted to make sure it was legit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this: the article I just linked to (from which I got the casting of Simon Greenall) also has a spoiler about the Absorbaloff (although it's one you might well have guessed already).  It doesn't seem appropriate to put a spoiler tag in front of the references section, but is there any other way to warn prospective readers that they might not want to follow a link? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Put an image of the abzarbaloff on? http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/newseries/abzorbaloff-1.jpg
Why did you take my image off?

Image:Abzorbaloff-1.jpg is lacking a copyright tag and source details. Follow the link in the red box on the image page for more details. —Whouk (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why Mark Warren (and a couple of others) were removed from the Cast list? The_B 22:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we won't know for sure until the episode airs, but is it worth noting that Linda was also the name of the woman in Bad Wolf and Parting of the Ways that the Doctor rescued (although was later killed by the Daleks) from the Big Brother house?
Also, the note about the TARDISODE contents, in that really necessary given the TARDISODE page that already exsists? Also, I'd say it's inaccurate due to it not actually displaying the whoisdoctorwho page, just something similar... The_B 00:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

re Linda; No, 'cos her name was Lynda (with a 'y'), not Linda. --DudeGalea 06:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, Lynda mentioned a Linda who was eveicted for damaging a camera. Probably irrelevant to this discussion though. --Billpg 08:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'll wager that L.I.N.D.A. will become a new tie-in website.

Personally I think it'll be the new identity for the whoisdoctorwho website, much like it went from Who Is Doctor Who to Defending The Earth at the beginning of this series... The_B 17:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, L.I.N.D.A. stands for London Investigation 'N' Detective Agency, according to the "We Love Telly!" supplement in today's Daily Mirror. --The_B 17:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Note 10 mentions that L.I.N.D.A. was previously used by RTD in Why Don't You..? Is Elton's line about coming up with it a while ago and waiting for a chance to use it ever since worth adding here, as a possible bit of self-reference? Daibhid C 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This may not be the first episode to have an ampersand in the title after all; it says Love and Monsters in the Radio Times. Daibhid C 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a picture of the cover of one version of the script, and that also uses an "and". I guess we'll have to wait and see on Saturday... —Whouk (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
and we get an actual & in tht title.  Morwen - Talk 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Shame it wasn't a demask'd Sycorax. Vitriol 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The episode has been aired now, and the plot should be done now.

When the story section goes blank, it means they're working on it. Vitriol 20:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In this instance, it's probably taking a bit longer because they're trying to find a way to not make the episode sound like a steaming pile of incoherent nonsense. Boom-boom! - Chris McFeely 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you implying something about the programme itself?! Vitriol 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Heaven forbid! Perish the thought! :D - Chris McFeely 21:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, is this the first Doctor Who story where the Doctor isn't the main character, as such? The_B 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mission to the Unknown doesnt feature the doctor at all mellery 00:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
And then there's Revelation of the Daleks where the Doctor and Peri wander around for most of the story. DonQuixote 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do none of you get this by now? Don't bother working on the plot, because Khaosworks will do it as soon as he's seen the episode, regardless of what's already been done. Save your energy: that's what I do.--Keycard (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bridget. It's on the BBC Doctor Who website. Resakov 10:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A note mentions the bad wolf virus may refer to the one given to Mickey to upload. I know the websites aren't treated as total canon but on Whoisdoctorwho, Mickey stated he didn't upload the virus. Given the whole specific Bad Wolf name, I'm inclined to think that damaging the files to protect herself is something Rose may have unknowingly done to protect herself when she was merged with the time vortex. Would it be ok to switch this note or at least add my (I think logical) speculation? --HellCat86 15:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

i looked this one up in the OED: it gives Kay's pronunciation as the only one : so perhaps better to refer to it as 'pedantically' rather than oddly?  Morwen - Talk 18:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always pronounced it as two syllables. I knew someone with it when I was younger, and they always pronounced it that way, so it's not an entirely out-of-use term. It's obviously not a word that comes up often, but I'm fairly sure most people I know would pronounce it eck-zeema (and not because they're being pretentious or pedantic, either. That seems to be how it's pronounced around here). --Made2Fade 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone I know pronounces it as if it was "exmer".  OTOH, around here "grass", "pass", "last" and similar words are pronounced with a short "a" like in "mass", rather than the long "a" of "farce" found elsewhere, and woodlice are called "chuckipigs", so it could just be a regional thing.  I thought Kennedy just used the "wrong" pronounciation, but there you go. RobbieG 09:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it waqs a spurr of the moment thought, rather than pronounced wrong - he was making it up at that second to divert everybody's questions.
James Random 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I think there is such a thing as eczema that flares up just by touching it. Some people even do art on their skin by touching it with a chopstick or something and the resulting flare-up has a pattern

I'm almost certain that Peter Kay's Brian Potter character in Phoenix Nights says the line "Avanti! Vamoosh!" to his staff in one of the episodes, just like I seem to remember he did in last night's episode Love & Monsters as Victor Kennedy, but my Phoenix Nights DVD is in another country at the moment, and I just missed the repeat of Love & Monsters, so can't confirm it. Can anybody else?

Kay used "Avanti!" in the John Smith's advert where he sends his Mother to the old folks home so he can watch the Snooker. The_B 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the other half of the story, from the Torchwood perspective *should* be developed.
When did Bad Wolf manipulate the Torchwood programs - when the original references were being scattered through history or is the composite entity capable of protecting itself even after the purpose for which (suitable pronoun) came into existence has been served?

The Face of Boe (for which something like this may be the backstory) and Hustle crossover fanfic stories are probably already being written. 
Jackiespeel 21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: Bad Wolf virus - Mickey Smith infected UNIT's computers (Aliens of London), and this in turn will have spread over the Internet, therbuy KOing Torchwood's files as well. Digifiend 08:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While I can see the attraction that people have in wanting to equate Mickey's computer virus with the Bad Wolf virus, it just doesn't work for the simple reason that the Doctor designed the virus to wipe out all information about himself, not Rose. In the "Who is Doctor Who?" website, Mickey writes that he is unwilling to use the virus; even if you don't consider that as having any bearing on the television series, in Love and Monsters Kennedy singles out Rose's file as lacking because of the Bad Wolf virus, but doesn't say anything about the Doctor's files being affected in the same way, which lends credence to the idea that Mickey didn't use the virus. It is more likely - although just as speculative in the long run - that Rose's information was corrupted by herself while she was the Bad Wolf and extending her reach through time and space. There's also the added problem of why the Doctor would name it the Bad Wolf virus (it has to come from somewhere) when he didn't notice the Bad Wolf until Boom Town (there's ways around this, but I won't get into that right now). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant "Bad Wolf the composite entity" - ie was the change made during the sequence of [[The Parting of the Ways" or some time afterwards (which would raise some interesting questions).
Virus might be a colloquialism./generic use (the equivalent of the "shift" key on a computer keyboard) - and what else did BWV affect (But we are wandering into fanfic and similar territory again). 
Minor question - was there a "Good Wolf"? Jackiespeel 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering how much thre Bad Wolf enitity was spread through various means, it's probably not suprising that some remnants would remain. Perhaps the virus would eventually give Rose another reminder/clue indirectly to affect something else that was featured. The_B 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need this bit of the article? We already have a section in the List_of_Doctor_Who_villains#Abzorbaloff for the Abzorbaloff... The_B 23:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Current thinking on talk pages is that one-shot villians/monsters should be moved from the list to the episode article, and have the list of villians/monsters contain references to the episode articles, and probably only entries for recurring monsters/villians.  Morwen - Talk 16:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've missed those discussions, but it's a position I agree with. Unless monsters recur, they should be dealt with in the episode article. —Whouk (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The following note has been the subject of dispute, having been added/removed several times. I'm moving it here for discussion:

When Victor Kennedy introduces himself, the incidental music resembles the theme tune to The X-Files.
This statement was removed because it is original research. Basically, if a contribution is a judgement call you've made on your own, and can't attribute to a reliable outside source, it doesn't belong in the article. For more information on what original research is and the Wikipedia policies surrounding it, see WP:NOR. If you disagree, and feel this statement does in fact meet Wikipedia policy, let's hash it out here and hopefully come to an agreement. -- MisterHand 20:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it is any different from the Quantum Leap point that has been allowed to remain. It is clearly a deliberate joke - the Mum on the BBC website's Fear Factor also picked up on it. Whilst I don't have any source from the crew to confirm the point, I feel it is quite blatant that it is meant to sound like that. I'm not even an X-Files fan - I've never seen a single episode - so this isn't a fan crusade or anything. It's just a minor observation that I think is a perfectly acceptable entry to the page. -- Finallycreatedaccount 22:34, 20 June 2006
I'm not sure about the Quantum Leap thing either, actually. Regarding this quote, what I would do is create a link to the website you mentioned, and give credit to the person making the observation. That would alleviate any OR concerns. -- MisterHand 21:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I would - but I can't figure out how to do the external links with footnotes. -- Finallycreatedaccount 25 June 2006

This is actually true, it's on Elton's computer at the beginning where he views a picture of the Tenth Doctor. The ninth doctor has his back to us with his arms outstretched, but the hair and leather jacket make him almost unmistakeable. I measure that it was taken from the second part of the episode in world war two, when the Doctor manages to re-assemble the transformed humans and blows the nanites out to them by stretching out his arms. James Random 11:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the scene in question, and I don't think that's the case. The man over the Tenth Doctor's shoulder has short hair like the Ninth, yes, but his arms aren't outstretched. What you see is someone else, off to the left of the screen, who is holding a camera and taking a picture of something in the background. It does not appear to be any kind of composite. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's a capture of the screen in question, for anyone who might want to look for themselves. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Daym! Oh well, I was close enough! Thanks anyway, terence. :)
I certainly thought whilst watching the episode and upon looking at that still that it is the Ninth Doctor with his back-turned. I thought it was symbollic - the old Doctor put to the background as a newer Doctor is in existence, (like that bar on the top of gallifreyone.com - the editor shifted the Ninth Doctor on into the old Doctors montage when Tennant came along) - L.I.N.D.A. presumably having footage of both the Ninth and Tenth Doctors. I think it's note-worthy... --Finallycreatedaccount 23:56, 22 June 2006

It's the "presumably" and "thought" part that bothers me: besides, as I noted, the photograph does not appear to be a composite or a montage in the context of the fictional web site (if it is, why add a photograph of a person holding a camera?), so that begs the question as to what/how/why the Ninth Doctor is doing standing with his back to the Tenth Doctor on the evening of the Christmas Invasion, and while I certainly could come up with explanations given that premise, it would still be speculative. I do not think that there's enough there to suggest that it might be the Ninth Doctor, and therefore to write a note about it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 Look at the second image of elton's computer screen - the one that fills the whole picture. 

Hello, this post is concerning my previous post about the ninth doctor appearing on Elton’s computer screen in Love and Monsters. I went back to the image in question when Khaosworks pointed out that the fellow was not part of the image, just the reflection of someone taking a photo. 

Firstly, the camera is pointing TOWARD the tenth doctor and the mystery fellow in the image, as the position of the hands around the camera and the camera itself indicate. Furthermore, the camera is part of the image on Elton’s screen since it appears behind the pixels rather than in front of them, as a mere reflection would. I sublit that the owner of the owner of the camera and the hands is, in fact, Ursula Blake, taking her photo of the ninth doctor.
Secondly the person that I presumed to be the ninth doctor is also apart of the
image and not a reflection, for the same reason, largely that the fellow appears behind
the pixels as part of the image and not in front of them as a reflection would do.
Furthermore, if you look closely at the mystery fellow, not only does he have short cropped hair as the ninth doctor did, but he also wears the same leather jacket, if you look close enough you can see the jacket’s seems and the fading in the colour. James Random 15:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of your personal opinion, if you want to add it to the article you'll need an external source confirming your suspicions. -- MisterHand 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the image yourself, you can clearly see the evidence yourself. James Random 16:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)(Addenum):I've emailed my mate at the BBC who works with Dr. Who - He'll be able to find out for me and settle the matter.
As I noted above, it's implausible for all sorts of in-story reasons, since you'll have to explain what exactly the Ninth Doctor is doing there crossing his own time stream. It's not him. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the evidence, and I just don't see that it's the ninth doctor. It's not that it doesn't look like him; just that from that angle it looks like a lot of people. Definitely need a verifiable source for this if you want it in the article, as it's not at all obvious. --DudeGalea 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The Doctor wouldn't necessarily be crossing his own time stream. Perhaps the image of the Ninth was added when someone realised that both People were, in fact, the same people adn simply photoshopped him in, since the resulution on both characters is different, I can generally assume that they were two different pictures intergrated together, rather than two people being in the same picture.
Why photoshop it and still leave the person taking the camera in the picture? There's no evidence that it's a composite picture, as I said before. You can't tell that the resolution is different, and it doesn't look different. Sorry, just don't see it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the question needs to be asked as to what evidence you have that it isn't two images put together? To my mind, at least, it is the Ninth Doctor and Ursula has just put an old photo of him behind her Christmas Invasion one of the Tenth Doctor to make a nice image for her homepage or which ever page that is. I think given all the evidence, it is a deliberate blink-and-you'll miss it reference to the Ninth Doctor put in by the programme-makers for the eagle-eyed viewer. That makes most sense to me. -- Finallycreatedaccount 25 June 2006
It's always difficult to prove a negative; that's why, for example, most legal systems generally place the burden of proof on the person making the assertion. I've stated that in-story, it doesn't really make sense for it to be a composite image because: (a) why not have a better picture of the Ninth Doctor and (b) why leave the camera taker in? There's a very explicit reference to the Ninth Doctor already later when you see the back of him in the Rose picture, so the production team putting in another reference (and a blink-if-you-miss-it one) is a bit unlikely. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that I may be wrong; but unless there's an explicit cite from the production team that this is a reference, it's just not obvious enough for us to put it in as a definite one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
As I did not make the point, I think I will leave you all to debate it further. In my opinion, which was all I was offering here, it is him. I don't see any harm in thinking it. -- Finallycreatedaccount 04:52, 25 June 2006
I agree with that guy earlier, Ursula probably realised they were the same person and put the 'old' doctor in the background as a sort of symbolic thing.

My assumption is that the episode was designed around the considerable commitments of Tennant and Piper in Planet/Pit or something like that, because it wasn't compelling enough to be a story that completely justified having so little of the Doctor and Rose. Oh, they made it fun (ELO dancing, Elton's monologues, etc.), but it felt like filler (and one of the most kiddy-oriented episodes yet). Is there anything that's been said about this, so we can explain it in the article? --Dhartung | Talk 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe on the commentary and/or the Confidential episode, they explained that this was filmed at the same time as The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, hence the scheduling conflict. -- MisterHand 19:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the worse Doctor Who episode EVER, worse then the Twin Dillema or Dimensions Of Time. It was too long and too boring

I have to agree it's bad, though it stands out all the more because it follows an excellent two-parter. It's a real pity that so much just didn't work, because fundamentally it could have done. I remember thinking if it had been played straight and without the silly concrete slab at the end it would have been much better. Kouros 07:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Certainly its considered the worst by most people I've spoken to. Perhaps we could have an entry on the main page labelled "Critisms"...

Maybe look at bad reviews? cyclosarin 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
See this is why Wikipedia's NPOV policies are supposed to be in effect for articles, and why I'm glad they are. Out of all the random newer episodes of Doctor Who (Ninth and Tenth Doctors) I have caught on SciFi Channel here in the 'States, this is actually my favorite, precisely because it's interesting to see how the Doctor's frequent travels in and out of time and places have affected even the smallest group of people in such a profound way, given how much the series usually seems to focus on the issues of the main cast and the random people they help in a given episode (i.e. it was like seeing follow-ups to episodes that never happened). And it was fun. And Elton, while not all that bright, was a fine character for a one-shot in my opinion. I especially like his closing statement about life being "so much stranger... so much darker, and so much madder... and so much better". (Oh, and it had fun music, too) Of course, it was obviously a filler episode (it felt like they were giving extra time off for the main cast or something, I'm not surprised to find out about the scheduling conflicts at all), but am I seriously the only person who doesn't think "filler" is always inherently bad? Look at Firefly, for isntance, my favorite episodes are Jaynestown and Our Mrs. Reynolds, and they have essentially NOTHING to do with the main plot arcs (I don't even think the Hands of Blue guys showed up, though I could be wrong), but they're still great fun to watch. One of my favorite ever episodes of Buffy was The Zeppo, and that pretty much features the dork of the main cast as the main character and has nothing to do with the major Season 3 arcs, and it's still a great episode. Non-arc or "filler" episodes can be great fun, so let's not denigrate it for being filler, OK?
Also, lovely bit of foreshadowing with "maybe that's what happens when you touch the Doctor - even for a second". I may not be an obsessive Doctor Who fan, but I know enough to know how... foreshadowy, that is. Any case, I thought it was a fun standalone episode, I don't care what all whopping four of you think. :D It's my favorite so far. (In fact, I would argue that for people who don't watch as regularly, it's a great episode, because it doesn't depend on too awfully much on knowing the mythology of the series or recent episodes in order to enjoy it). This episode's title caught my eye in the guide and this episode is the first time I have actually felt I knew why people loved this series so much. 63.21.59.2 04:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this is pure original research, but am I the only one who picked up on a lot of similarities between the mannerisms and actions of the Abzorbaloff and Fat Bastard from the second and third Austin Powers movies? Perhaps I'm nuts, but I picked up on what seemed to be a bit of fanservice for the Scottish baby-eating fatty right away. 24.34.23.216 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you’re right, in both make-up and dialogue, he is fat-bastard-y. I didn’t notice at first, but at one point after he revealed his true form, he even sounded a bit Scottish. I don’t really think it belongs in the article unless there’s evidence of a link, but I want to assure you that you are not crazy. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read this article before, I always thought Elton was older and plainer. Seeing it on Sci-Fi tonight I was quite surprised. Based on the choice of a young-looking actor and the was he dresses and acts, I’d venture that the character was not meant to be more than 27 or so, maybe much less, and he is absolutely adorable( and I don’t usually care for blonds). There must be some way for the synopsis to reflect this. Maybe call him a “young man” instead of just a man, and mention how Jackie is always admiring his looks. Also, I think the fact that the villian is from Clom, sister planet of Raxacoricofallapatorius, merits a continuity or triva mention. --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Did not come to pass - Rose and Jackie have what appears to be a happy ending (albeit in a parallel universe). Jackiespeel 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... not quite. Rose wanted to stay with the Doctor, but was devastated when she wound up trapped on a parallel Earth to which the Doctor can never return without burning up two universes (which brings up an interesting question: would she seek a parallel Sarah Jane Smith?). On the other hand, Jackie's life definitely took a turn for the better (one can argue the same for Mickey) as she didn't exactly waste time becoming pregnant (presumably by the parallel Peter Tyler).147.70.242.40 00:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember this actress being in it in any role other than Elton's mother, so surely she becomes Mrs Pope?--Rambutan (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they divorced and she kept her name, but I thats just an opinion, not fact.--Wiggstar69 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Auton stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Right at the top it says in thefirst paragraph that the episode ...hardly features the regular cast, I dont understand this as Jackie, Rose and the Doctor are all in the episode

I think it can be read as "comparatively speaking", if you will. Compared to other episodes, they really are "hardly featured", even though they do appear in the episode, speaking roles and all. Perhaps it should be changed to something more like "Features the principle cast much less than other episodes in the series"? 63.21.59.2 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As it currently stands, the wording is POV, however. The main point is that the primary focus of the story is not on the Doctor and Rose, nor is it on a recurring character like Jackie, not even on the villain, but on one-shot characters Elton and (to a lesser extent) Ursula. The statement itself is not that important: the use of a narrator (a device latered echoed in the last two Season Two episodes) is much more noteworthy. What other Doctor Who TV stories (current or "classic series") used a narrator as a primary storyteller? In itself it was as radical a stylistic departure as "The Gunfighters".147.70.242.40 01:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Clom is actually Raxacoricofallapatorius' twin planet, therefore there is all possibility that The Doctor and Rose have never heard of it! For example, Mondas is Earth's twin planet, only because they were extremely similar to each other, not because they were close to each other... Anybody agree so this can be removed from the article? --Ed the Penguin 11:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree. I think the problem is that most people that hear of the real-life "twin" planets of Earth and Venus, which are near each other, even if they aren't anything alike.
-- trlkly 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Absorb1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the FUR for this article. However, I notice there was one there already for List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, which apparently no longer has the image on it.  It might be good to either add it back or remove the extraneous FUR, but I do not presume to say which! --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love & Monsters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 16:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Grabbing this one for a review. Straight away, both the fair use images are needed for the article. Miyagawa (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay; I was a little unsure of the second one. Note that the source for the image is found archived here, but not the actual image. I've had a hard time finding it anywhere else, so I'm not sure it would even count. I'm considering adding a free image of either Davies or Kay to the reception section at any rate. Glimmer721 talk 01:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it counts because of the unusual nature of the alien's creation. So it's good to see literally the source of the design as well as what appeared on screen. Anyway, I'll finally get that review done now! Miyagawa (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Lead: Right now I think it looks a little unbalanced. On my screen the first paragraph is two lines, the second is three and the third paragraph is eight lines. The second paragraph could do with the standard line to explain what the show is before "In this episode", and I would personally move the Blue Peter origin line from the third paragraph to the end of the third. Those two changes should increase the size of the first two paragraphs and reduce the third sufficiently to address the balance.
I tried explaining what the show is both in general and with what specific characters at the time of this episode (harder than I thought...), so feel free to critique that. Do you mean move the Blue Peter line to the end of the second paragraph? I'm not quite sure because it also has to do with production. Glimmer721 talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That looks fine. I removed a couple of duplicated links (the Doctor and TARDIS). It makes the second paragraph on par with the size of the third, although the first one does look small in comparison. But I don't think much can be done about that - moving the Blue Peter line probably doesn't fit well with the structure and I tried merging the first and second paragraphs and it just looked horrible. Best to leave it as it is right now. Miyagawa (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Plot: The actors names should follow the first mention of the characters (as you have in the lead). You don't have to repeat those that have already appeared in the lead, but some people like to. I've seen episodes with both styles, and both look fine.
I did the second and left out Tennant and Piper because they're both in the lead and in production again, and it just didn't quite seem to fit in with the way the plot is (the characters are mentioned before they appear, for instance). Glimmer721 talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
External links: If the reviews are reliable then I'd suggest that they are incorporated into the article, otherwise I'd say to remove them.
I removed them, though I just kept the Ratings Guide up there as another external source. OG is already linked in general and the other review was a bizarre addition. Glimmer721 talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Once you've had a look at that, then I'll run through the prose. Miyagawa (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I got rid of the period after "Mr" because that's technically British English. Glimmer721 talk 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that, I'll turn the International English side of my brain on so I don't go and spellcheck everything into British English. Miyagawa (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Er. Why shouldn't everything be spellchecked into British English? As a production of the BBC, and not a co-production with an American station, MOS:TIES applies. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there an established practice from the Project? Miyagawa (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes; WP:WHO/MOS#General, third bullet. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, in that case, the article should be in British English after all then. Thanks for clarifying. Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Production: Would it be better to say that The Zeppo and Lower Decks focused on different characters rather than character? I don't recall The Zeppo that well, but I know Lower Decks concentrated on three or four non-main characters. Miyagawa (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Corrected; I don't think I've seen "Lower Decks" but I have seen "The Zeppo" (coincidentally I watched it again last night), and that one pretty much just focuses on Xander. Glimmer721 talk 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Other than that, I think the episode is good to go for GA status. Miyagawa (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay I believe I have fixed everything then. Thanks for the review! Glimmer721 talk 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, all looks good now. Happy to promote. Miyagawa (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Love & Monsters. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.radiotimes.com/content/show-features/doctor-who/russell-t-davies-on-love-and-monsters/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nowplayingmag.com/content/view/4042/47/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Love & Monsters. 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/20060619203147/http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/love-commentary.mp3 to http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/love-commentary.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Love_and_Monsters_(film)%7CLove_%26_Monsters In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Love and Monsters (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)