# Talk:Doctor Who Prom (2008)

In the Doomsday section, it says " Following the emotional performance, Freema Agyeman commented, "Not a dry eye in the house, I should imagine." Someone added a citation needed tag. I'm not sure how to add one, but Freema actually said that during the concert. Rayden54 (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we need actual published evidence of that - the word of someone who was at the concert isn't sufficient.  I suppose it probably was audible on the radio broadcast, and could be checked on the eventual TV broadcast.  Alos, is it really so significant that we have to mention it in this article?  David Underdown (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to prove everyone was crying to prove she said it. It was in the Listen Live thing. 71.186.66.6 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Millions of people heard it on the radio broadcast (i.e. "published" by Radio 3). I just listened to a recording of that. She said it. So I deleted the "citation needed" note.Barsoomian (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Justina Robson's 20 minute talk should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Although the talk did'nt go down very well with the Doctor Who fans on the OG forum, it's still worth at least a small mention here (kept neutral of course). :-) All Grown Up Whovian 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thought — added.  How much detail do you think we can go into without skirting original research? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, as long as only the facts are mentioned it should be fine. What you've added looks good! I'll keep a close watch for vandals adding their opinion of the speech though. All Grown Up Whovian 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a link (like this: In the essay, (transcribed here) ....) to a transcription of her talk. Though "self-published", as a forum post, it is verifiable -- by anyone who cares to listen to the  recording, as I have done. Also, being a forum, it would have been challenged if it was inaccurate (beyond a few typos); it was not. I think therefore that as it is clearly labelled a "transcription" it is a useful and correct addition. So to the guy who summarily deleted it without discussion: please explain here your reasoning, don't just revert. Barsoomian (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link, not only becuase it is a forum post (which fails as a reliable source), but also because the forum requires a username/password, thus is not publicly accessable.  — Edokter • Talk •  12:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As above it IS verifiable against the broadcast and recordings available online and elsewhere. However I take the point that that forum is not accessible to non-members. Try explaining what you're doing and why rather than just reverting other people's edits with no explanation or comment. Unless you just enjoy starting edit wars. Barsoomian (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I always leave a descriptive edit summary.  — Edokter • Talk •  17:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"Summary", yes, "descriptive", no. Made sense to you, not to me. I had no idea you were referring to the forum link. If I had been aware the forum link was not accessible, I wouldn't have put it there to begin with. Barsoomian (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL only applies to things being listed in the "External links" section of the article, it does not apply to things being used as references (otherwise we couldn't use a number of scientific journals for reference purposes).  We are only really using it as a courtesy link, since the original broadcast is now hard to come by, so I think the site is reliable enough for these purposes).  (incidentally, I'm not a member fo the forum).  David Underdown (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was linking the term "scalped" to ticket resale, and saw that according to that article "scalping" is an American usage.  Is it still considered an Americanism?  If so, it should probably be avoided in this article (per WP:ENGVAR).  How would a native speaker of British English say this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm British and I would say "touted". But i'm not 100% sure whether thats an Americanism i've picked up or a gunine British term. All Grown Up Whovian 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a quick glance at Ticket resale suggests that "tout" is the British English word. Therefor, touted would be a British English term. All Grown Up Whovian 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that.  I saw from the article that the British term was "tout", but I was honestly unsure how to put that in the past tense! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added what information I could from the various news sources that covered the Prom.  The Guardian and the Sun didn't really have any info that wasn't already covered elsewhere, and the Daily Mail's article was a rehashing of the review from the Evening Standard.  If anyone else can find any more actual reviews of the concert, that would be great. (I did find this, but I'm not sure whether it's a reliable source.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual Guardian review, as opposed to the news in brief piece you've linked to is here.  David Underdown (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.  I've added that to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolf of Fenric pointed out (on my talk page) that the infobox doesn't really work without entries for Director, Producer, and so forth.  Since the Prom wasn't an actual episode (although it contained one), is it appropriate for us to use the infobox at all?  The only info that's there and not also found elsewhere in the article is the duration of the concert and the mention of Doctor Who: A Celebration, which we could probably fit in somewhere else.  What do people think about the infobox as it stands, with "TBC" in all the categories? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Television}} is probably a better choise.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that presumptive?  We know it's been "filmed for later broadcast on BBC One", but its television airing hasn't even been scheduled.  Perhaps {{infobox concert}}? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I've put up samples of {{infobox concert}} and {{infobox music festival}} in my sandbox, but none of them seem quite right.  Perhaps someone who understands the syntax for infoboxes can make us a bespoke one? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The infobox now used is clearly inappropriate.
"Originally broadcast: Royal Albert Hall (première screening)"
How ridiculous. It is primarily a LIVE concert. And it has never been "screened". 
I'd just reformat it without trying to force it into a "TV" or even more absurd "Doctorwho" infobox. But I know I'd be wasting my time. Any changes I made would be reverted.Barsoomian (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's totally irrelevant, but I just had to laugh at this, lest I explode: "I think once people saw what was in the programme, they backed down. It's hard to talk about dumbing down when we're hosting a concert for families that include pieces by Holst, Wagner and Prokofiev."
Wow one piece each by three "proper" composers! (Note he ignores poor Aaron Copland.) Only slight problem is, they picked the most populist of their works. Jupiter from the Planets Suite = I vow to thee my country, Montagues and Capulets = The Apprentice advert, and who hasn't heard the Ride of the Valkyries? There's no introducing people to music they may not have heard before, to something different and exciting, just the same old stuff that has been so overplayed it's effectively pop music anyway. I know you can't just go and start throwing Schnittke or entire Mahler symphonies at children, but really? Couldn't they have thought something other than "Damn, we've got to put some boring real classical music in... maybe if we give them something predictable and safe that they already know they'll be able to grin and bear it without running out of the Hall with their hand clapped over their ears!"?
Dan (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well (he said, despite knowing full well that Wikipedia is not a forum) the Proms is meant to be populist and accessible.  And the Turnage piece wasn't exactly "classical pop" — it was the UK debut of a piece by a modern "proper" classical composer, and a comparatively atonal piece at that.
That said, if you have any sources criticizing the concert for being too populist, please feel free to provide them and/or add their criticisms to the article! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I know it's an old argument, but while the majority may know Montagues and Capulets etc, they may have never heard the full work, only the publicised excerpt.  Also, as the daughter of a singing teacher, you'd be surprised to hear how many tales I've heard of 18-year-olds not knowing even more popular songs such as "Away in a manger" or "Somewhere over the rainbow"!  But Josiah Rowe is right, the proms essentially combine popular classical music with less well-known pieces.  Amzi  (Talk To Me)  17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've passed this article as GA.  You can find the review at Talk:Doctor Who Prom/GA1.  It also contains a few comments which might be useful if anyone wants to take this article further.  For the time being, well done. Gwinva (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed a remark about this being "The Doctor's first ever appearance in HD", because it was poorly worded and uncited.  I know that Doctor Who is not generally filmed in HD, but I think that we would need an actual source calling this the first ever HD Doctor Who or some such, or at least noting that Doctor Who proper is not filmed in HD.  (Since the article is a GA, we should be extra careful about sourcing.)
Incidentally, is there any indication as to whether "Music of the Spheres" was filmed in HD?  My thought would be that it wouldn't be, because the Cardiff studios aren't set up for it, but it's possible that if the producers knew that the concert was going to be broadcast later in HD that they might have filmed the scene in HD as well, perhaps as a trial for later HD Doctor Who. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Will there be a separate article or are all the Proms in this article. Should there be a Doctor Who Prom 2008 and a Doctor Who Prom 2010 article now ? Hektor (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably worth splitting them - I suspect this won't be the last one.  Perhps ought to think about the naming anyway.  It's in the back of my mind (especially now the BBC have at long last released the Proms archive) that if these proms are notable so is every other back to 1895, and maybe one day I'll start cerating articles, so it would be nice to have a naming convention, but that can be sorted later.  David Underdown (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Doctor Who Prom (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110616150119/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/proms/article4413065.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/proms/article4413065.ece
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110616025441/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/proms/article4413034.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/proms/article4413034.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Doctor Who Prom (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110616160029/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5318465.ece to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5318465.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)