# Talk:The Big Bang (Doctor Who)

I've protected the page for an hour to give you a chance to actually use this talk page. Nimicitor, please provide some justification that BBC press packs are not copyrighted; I do not believe that is the case.  Also, even if true, please gain consensus for your change, as multiple editors seem to disagree with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) (added later: Just so it's clear, if this material is re-added without consensus here when protection expires, I will block you from editing. Still, leaving protection in place as a cool down measure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
From the BBC site, their own words with regards to copyright [1] magnius (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral on the subject, I was just a person that got caught up in the edit war. Rohedin TALK 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, that's not really a good defense for edit warring... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Though the removal of obvious copyvio material is a good defence... ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Either way, the user will most likely be blocked as he has a SPI case and has been filed at AIV for edit warring. Rohedin TALK 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"The BBC Press Office website offers journalists BBC press releases and press packs, programme information, biographies, speeches and key facts."
The BBC states only pictures are copyrighted!
Do you even know what a Press Pack is? It is a small summary of future programs for journalists to print in newspapers and magazines.
They are not copyrighted which is why they are used all through Wikipedia but for some reason some arrogant idiots think they know better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/aboutus/#content

That doesn't state that you have the right to reproduce it here.  The page here [2] however forbids the copying of any material without written consent from the BBC, do you have that? magnius (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Two things:
When did we become "journalists"?
Is said material from press releases, copyrighted or not, even encyclopedic in tone? From reading it, my presumption would be "no". –MuZemike 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: The user has been blocked for copyright violations. Rohedin TALK 16:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment—content on the BBC website is not released under a free license, and thus removing it from Wikipedia is exempted from the 3RR as the deletion of obvious copyright violations. This is not complicated. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Quoth |the BBC themselves: "All copy within Programme Information can be used free of charge on condition that it credits the relevant BBC programme or service."  Nimicitor appears to have been using the copy and crediting the relevant BBC programme or service as required (in the references).  This is not complicated.  213.105.7.129 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you obviously can't read, which is a pity, since you're trying to edit an encyclopedia. The BBC Programme Information material is not released under a free license. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 07:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, not quite. Their detailed terms & conditions (at link [2], above) are quite clear ; "You may not copy, reproduce, republish, .... make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use." Wikipedia is not counted as either personal or non-commercial, despite that we are enjoy charitable status. In any event, we are quite at liberty to paraphrase their preview in our own words as long as we do not lift it verbatim, which I think is the issue here. Also, the episode will air in less the a fortnight, and there's no pressing need to have that content right now. Rodhullandemu 22:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
IMHO This modifying [3] is not clear at all on derivative works. Besides the text on the programme information page is normally written in promotional language and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Edgepedia (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think? Sepmix (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, because she's confirmed to be in it, and it would be precipitant to assume that she won't be a companion IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sepmix (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that they appeared in the cliffhanger - can we safety add the villain templates to this episode as well as the cybermen one - since they will appear - if nothing else in the cliffhanger recap.  And if you want to go all "OR - can't assume" - then what's the Cybermen one doing there, cause if you're going to say we can't be sure about about any others, then we can't be sure about the cybermen either. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The end of the Doctor Who Confidential episode has some revealing bits - Steven Moffat said "Who are the Silence?" (emphasis and capitalisation mine); River Song's identity will be revealed in the next series; the next series will be about the Silence and River Song (presumably in part, at the very least). --90.208.176.179 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could he have meant "Who are Silents", and the ominous voice have been saying "Silents will fall"? Peter Grey (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely, since we heard silence at the end of "The Vampires of Venice", but that speculation is anyway original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone find the ratings for this episode and some other episodes of this season that are missing them?--Cooly123 15:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)  

The ratings are already in the article, under Broadcast. If there are other articles missing ratings, you can find them at the BARB website. Frickative 15:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no "cultural reference" section to this article, but it could be noted that the Doctor's text message of "Geronimo" as he takes off in the Pandorica is in the tradition of people shouting that when jumping from airplanes and such. Started in WW-II. 
I'll leave this here, but if anyone does decide to add such a section, this should be included.  Jeff (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Big Bang (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll give the article a read through now and add comments below as I come across them. I really loved this episode, although I always thought they should have done more with the whole last centurion business. Anyway, I'm going off topic from the review, let me get back to that reading! :) Miyagawa (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Lead: "6 million 696 thousand viewers" - I think it'd be better just putting it as 6.696 million viewers, or "around 6.7 million viewers".
Plot: Caitlin Blackwood in brackets needs to be added after the seven-year-old Amelia Pond is first mentioned.

"Her touching the box allows it to revitalise Amy and let her out" - Not sure about the flow of the sentence - perhaps something along the lines of "She touched the box, allowing it to revive Amy and release her."
Filming and effects: Might want to mention that Brangwyn Hall is in Swansea, otherwise with it directly following Port Talbot, it makes you think that it's actually there as well.
Those are the only problematic issues with the article. Obviously an image in the infobox would be nice, but not necessary for the GA status. Miyagawa (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I've fixed everything above. I love this episode as well (it might even be my favorite) because I'm a big time travel fan (and there is nothing paradoxical about the Doctor giving Rory the screwdriver). Glimmer721 talk 17:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I believe the article now meets all the GA criteria. Nice job. Miyagawa (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the article the word 'inescapable' is being incorrectly applied to describe the Pandorica as being a prison from which escape is impossible. Inescapable means a situation or circumstance which is inevitable or cannot be avoided. It does not mean a physical location or constraints from which it is impossible to remove a person or thing. Thus, the fact of incarceration in a prison cell upon conviction for murder is usually inescapable. The cell itself is not inescapable, even if it is 100% secure; it is escape-proof or impossible to escape from. This is not 'inaccurate pedantry' as it has been characterised in a revert; it is a matter of correct word meaning and use within the text. 217.43.31.156 (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)