# Talk:The Beast Below

Surely this episode, going up to Episode Six, should already have their broadcast dates on considering we know the series starts on the 3rd April. Obviously, we don't know if Episode Nine is being delayed by a week or not, but that doesn't really affect the first six episodes. 86.169.44.95 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Still needs a source. magnius (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The page on Ian McNeice only has him appearing as Winston Churchill in episode three.  I haven't got a copy of the Radio Times, which is given as a reference for him appearing here.  Can someone who does correct whichever page is incorrect?  As this episode is set in the 'far future', I suspect it is wrong here.  Jrmh (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I was wrong and he appeared at the end.  Sorry.  :-) Jrmh (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Did a Dalek actually appear in this episode? Wasn't it just the shadow of a Dalek? anemoneprojectors talk 00:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's just the shadow. Whether this very brief hint counts as an appearance is a matter for discussion. I think we should clearly describe it as a teaser.  Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
While you are correct saying that it was just a shadow, I don't think there will be many people now thinking, "Ooo, I wonder what that was!  Can't wait to find out next week!" In other words, yes a Dalek did appear (in my opinion). Jrmh (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That's bunk, the Dalek appearance was merely a teaser for next week, whether it was an obvious teaser or not it had nothing to do with this story arc. Tony2Times (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added the complete poem read by the girl at the start. Here is the one at the end, but I don't know if it is really important:

It sounds to me like Liz 10 reading it, but I'm not sure. If someone thinks it is important enough you can add it. Jrmh (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The first line sounded like "In bed above we're deep asleep" to me. Swampy 138.130.158.92 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No it's not important. The plot summary is already for too long and over detailed as it is. 89.242.209.7 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the plot sypnosis, (whilst its good that someone went to the trouble of writing out an original one), is too long. It needs to made shorter and more concise, as it currently goes into far too much depth for an episode summary.P.Marlow (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

For now sidestepping what is perhaps the worst plot section I have ever seen, what the hell was a Winder in this episode? Should it be in a (much much shorter) plot summary? U-Mos (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, a Winder is the mobile version of the Smiler - [1] Jrmh (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense that the "Smilers" are the figures in the booths which have 3 faces. The three faces are "smile" "frown" and "tooth". 
The "Winders" are the men in the black cloaks who walk around the ship and shepard the children. They are winders because they all have a keys around their necks. These keys are used to wind a mechanism (usually involving a spring and several gears) that puts the "smilers" in motion. This is similar to the need to wind clocks or other devices designed in the 1800s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laminate (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)  Laminate (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Laminate

It's a confusing world. It would appear you are correct, the Winders are all the hooded peeps, as Jonathan Battersby is, I believe, the figure in the "Vator" in the pre-credits sequence. As nice as it is when a writer thinks of names, systems and the general world beyond the script itself, it doesn't half make it difficult to see who played who sometimes! U-Mos (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Although having a long plot like in this article can be informative, is the sheer length of the plot section not off-putting to people wanting to read it? Most of the other Doctor Who episodes have much shorter sections on plot. Forgive me if the idea of Wikipedia is to cram the absolute maximum into everything, I'm new here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icedragz (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 

Nope, it needs fixing. Epicly. Currently it's probably scaring everyone. I might have a bash in a bit. U-Mos (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
This has already been commented on - please feel free to tidy it up a bit.  I have already made a few minor changes, but I too am a bit intimidated by the sheer magnitude of the work required. Jrmh (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes with these things, I feel like the only way around it is to wipe everything and rewrite the whole thing from scratch in order to do less work. DonQuixote (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It probably needs a rewrite as it's currently very hard to decide what should be removed because of the sheer amount of it. Icedragz (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've cut it down. Massively. Doesn't read brilliantly I don't think, but it's a hell of a lot better. U-Mos (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with a long "summary" of the plot.  But could an adult please edit it.  It reads as if written by a poorly educated 12 year old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 

{{editsemiprotected}}
correct the spelling of "devastating"
89.241.197.209 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, my mistake, typos can slip in occassionally. U-Mos (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

At 2:11 (minutes), there is a shot of Timmy in the elevator screaming from the opening of the elevator floor. To his right, the "Smiler" is clearly visible. His face is set to "tooth" although it doesn't actually change from "frown" to "tooth" until 2 seconds later.
Laminate (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Laminate

That's not a plot hole, that's a continuity error.  Neither one of these are notable in-and-of-themselves.  DonQuixote (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is probably too obscure to go in the article, but was that the first optical wipe that's been used in Doctor Who at the end? David (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Rest assured I spat out my caviar. U-Mos (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
What is an optical wipe? gh5046 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Was the Union Flag on the ship deliberately upside down to indicate distress, is this the new Union Flag without Scotland (but keeping the blue of St Andrew?!), or was it a mistake?  And if it's on a ship, wouldn't a Blue Ensign be more appropriate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.2.107 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) 

The Blue ensign - It's not _on_ a ship, it's _the_ ship. An isle in space, not in sea, to be poetic. But a good point. GreetingsMR  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.59.148 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Erm... it wasn't upside down? Not from the viewer's perspective at any rate. U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
They changed the rules for it by the 29th century...or so it would seem. DonQuixote (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Depends which way round it's supposed to be viewed.  I mean most of the flags are visible from both sides - so logically, if the flag is on the left (correct way) from one side it'll be the wrong way from the other side.  188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I think he's talking about the flag painted on the side of the ship which you can see right at the end. If you look at the opening scene, the flag is the right way up. If you look at the flag at the end of the show, where we can see the other side of the ship, the flag is upside down. 86.183.239.18 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that the infobox image (of the Doctor allowing people to hear the starwhale's screams) is quite right for the article - I think one of the smilers would be better. Does anyone agree? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree – the current picture looks a bit murky. Absurdtrousers (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

...Erm, just wondering, but would it be worth putting a line in there about this being the Eleventh's doctor's first 'off-world' adventure or something? At present it doesn't really describe the article's content. Absurdtrousers (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a pass at expanding the lead, based on the Edit Box at the top requesting a more complete summary of the plot.  I personally felt that it was important to mention this is the Eleventh Doctor and Amy's first off-world adventure and included that in my lead.  So that's two of us, at least. --Sherlockspock (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Start date}}, which I have just added to this article's infobox, is mandated by the infobox's documentation. It is required to include the date in the infobox's emitted hCalendar microformat, which is otherwise invalid. There's an outstanding BOTREQ to convert other instances of the infobox. It's already used on the infobox for the preceding episode, with no problem. There is consensus to emit such microformats across Wikipedia. It's not a good idea to removed things just because they are not understood, especially when they do no harm (i.e. make no visual changes) to the article, and when documentation is available and has been referred to. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see no reason for this page to be different to every other Doctor Who episode-page. If you wish to change them all in a run, feel free. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 12:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
AS stated above There's an outstanding BOTREQ to convert other instances of the infobox.. Meanwhile, you have again broken this article's microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Please explain to me, why you are so insistent that this and only this article should have the new format? If you're not prepared to wait for the bot to do the lot, why have you chosen this particular page to fiddle with? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 13:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can point out where I said that "this and only this article should have the new format", I'll gladly do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You said it here – that is your contributions page, and (as far as I can tell) you haven't altered any other page in such a way.
However, if you're going to be pedantic about it, I shall rephrase my question. Why can't you wait for the bot? Why are you personally only altering one particular page? Why this page? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 13:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I said no such thing; nor did I "personally only alter one particular page". So please moderate your attitude and stop shouting. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You did personally only alter one particular page, as far as I can tell. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 14:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok...
First off, {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}} does request the used of {{Start date}} and {{End date}}. And it looks like that has been the case for about a year.
Second, if other like articles have the embedded template in use, there is no reason for this one not to. And even if there aren't, there is no reason why this shouldn't be the first.
There is mention of a BOTREQ, could a link to that please be provided? It would be nice to see what the status of that request is.
As for editing in lieu of a bot... Last I checked, aside from vandalism and disruptive content, an editor can make any improvements to an article as they see fit. If they jump ahead of a bot. so what? It was going to get done anyway. Is there a big problem whether it was sooner rather than later?
By the same token, one editor is not, and should not be, expected to "do it all". They can if they want, but they can limit themselves to the few, or one, articles they run across or watch.
- J Greb (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think that Pigsonthewing's behaviour on this occasion has been disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The disruptive behaviour - repeatedly removing a common and documented template for changing, but not good, reasons, even after its purpose has been explained to you; making false accusations - has been yours. It's time you reverted your last edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ...as you wish. Oh, and please provide a diff of me making a false accusation. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 17:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Blunt observation - It takes 2+ to disrupt an article by edit warring.
Yes, courtesy would have been for Pigsonthewing to have come to the talk page to explain and discuss in lieu of a 3rd revert. But there is also some obligation for TT to have looked at what was referred to in the edit summary (and yes, that should have been clearer in pointing to the infobox template).
The infobox docs request/suggest a particular formatting. Using it is not in and of itself disruptive. Fighting over it is. And all things considered, it is also looks like a very silly fight.
Now, another editor - Drmargi - has re-added the format. Not really the best solution, but understandable since neither previous editor bothered to put a link in their edit summary to this discussion. So, where would we like to go from here? - J Greb (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
My last edit summary to the article was "See talk", after which I wrote the first post in this section; the summary for my edit before that was "please read the infobox and/ or date template documentation". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for asking, and for your wise comments. The template in question has used {{Start date}} since at least 1 September 2008. As of 1 August 2009, Smackbot is approved to carry out the work across a wide number of infobox templates; and indeed has made many such edits. For reasons unknown, that has not continued, so I'm currently seeking another BOT operator to continue. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Before this turns into an edit war, can we get a consensus as to whether a shadow of a Dalek cast on a wall at the end of the episode makes this a "Dalek Story"? magnius (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say it does: it wasn't a trailer, or a flashback, or a memory – actual Daleks were in a scene which was explicitly and deliberately shown as part of the episode. (The Churchill actor was credited as being in this episode, so why should we treat the Dalek any differently?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
An apparent glimpse of a dalek does not make this a "dalek story", so {{Dalek stories}} should not be used on this article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
An apparent glimpse of Winston Churchill clearly made this a Winston Churchill story, according to the BBC, so I am not sure why you have reached a different conclusion in the case of the Dalek which was in the room with him? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:SYNTHESIS applies; and how many lines did the dalek have? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONSENSE applies, actually. The scene in which Churchill and the Dalek appeared (referring to the visual sense) was blatantly in the episode, and I am genuinely stunned that anybody could argue otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 20:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not a dalek story, but the template includes the episode as a "minor appearance". I think as long as the episode is included in the template, the template should be placed in the article. anemoneprojectors talk 20:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The episode should be removed for the template; for the same reason (and because WP:COMMONSENSE applies). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it was a Dalek "story", but it was a cameo appearance which does make it a Dalek "minor appearance"...in fact, it's more of a minor appearance than the archive clip for The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed should be included but as stated minor appearance. Pro66 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
OK; there appears to be a workable consensus here? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I raised a similar question at the talk page of The Eleventh Hour and received a satisfactory reply. I'm adding my support to the growing consensus that the description of this (and the other) as minor appearances is acceptable--I see that as a question best left to those interested in maintaining the navigation template, and if they have decided to document appearances down to this fleeting glimpse that's okay. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a comment that the Magpie logo can be seen on various items on and around the eleventh Doctor's TARDIS console; but it was reverted for lack of references.  How about these: it is explicitly mentioned in the BBC TARDIS Tour online video: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/episodes/b00rs6t7/videos/p00765jg) and for a canonical reference, it is seen on the rear of the TARDIS monitor while the Doctor is talking to "Danny Boy" the Spitfire pilot in "War games" (around 26 mins in). I don't still have a recording of "The Beast Below", so can't verify if it was seen in this episode too - someone may be kind enough?. User: FredGP  —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC). 

Regardless of whether the grammar is correct or not, the current version of the article does not fully convey the events of the episode. We don't know whether every single adult in the Starship UK ignores Mandy, we only know that the adults that were walking by were ignoring Mandy. And indicating that Liz "called herself" Liz 10 helps the reader more fully grasp the interaction between the Doctor and the Queen. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 08:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not really a case of grammar but a case of wordiness. The details that you mention are unnecessary in a plot summary. DonQuixote (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

After researching, when Amy was at a screen to 'forget', her age was '1306 years old'. When the Dcotor first meet her in the summer of 1996, she was seven, making her birth year 1989. After doing some research(1989+1306=3295), I believe the episode of 'The Beast Below' is set in the year 3295. Can we add this? Thank you.
(TheGreenwalker (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

Trouble is, that is still original research so I'm not sure we can use your maths..however valid. magnius (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Where does Rose's Missing Year fit into this?  Honestly I agree that we have to keep a tight rein on any speculation about dates and ages.  This is especially true during the tenure of Steven Moffat, who is known to be fond of time travel tricks.  If anyone wants to continue this line of reasoning I reserve the right to throw them into the Leadworth duck pond. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off topic (and very, very late), but when the machine states her age, it says 1306. The screens clearly say 1308 (i've got it on blu-ray, paused it at the exact moment). Mindless trivia, possibly, but still worth noting. 71.206.163.107 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, no comment on the Star Wars & Discworld references in this episode? 

The Winders' Jedi-like costumes
Liz 10's plea to the Doctor "Help us, you're our only hope!"
Star Whale = Discworld's turtle   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.172.168 (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source about these? Edgepedia (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Many mythologies include something like a "world turtle" (and you can check that right here on Wikipedia), so I don't think that qualifies as a Discworld reference. I did definitely notice the "You're our only hope!" line, though.

As long as we're doing spurious reference recognition...

My first thought on seeing the city was that it was one of James Blish's Cities in Flight. Or possibly one of the city-ships from the cover of Boston's first album.
The atmosphere in general was very reminiscent of the underwater environment of Rapture, particularly the Smilers in their arcade-style booths
I'm serious about this one. The starwhale's tentacles, poking up through the holes in the floor, were a near-perfect duplicate of the tentacle creatures from the original Half-Life game (I think the eye was omitted). That can't have been accidental.
No disrepsect to him, but I got the feeling that Moffat went on a deliberate and good-natured plagiarism spree here. No, plagiarism is too strong a word. An homage here, a tip-of-the-hat there, throwing in all sorts of cool references, large and small, that SF fans would recognize and enjoy.

Based on the Edit Box at the top of this article, and that I feel comfortable enough with my knowledge of the Eleventh Doctor's episodes (having them on Netflix Instant also helps with the comfort level), I've made my best effort at expanding the lead section to more completely reflect a summary of the rest of the article.  Since "Turn Left" (another ep with which I feel very comfortable with my knowledge level) is listed on the WikiProject page as having been a Good Article, I used that as a guide in expanding the summary in the lead section.
Since it is very early in my contributions - outside copyediting - to Wikipedia in general and to Doctor Who in particular, I would very much like to solicit feedback from the community.  I feel no ownership of what I've written, which I understand is important for submissions, and am completely open to whatever constructive criticism is coming my way; in fact, I welcome it.  I want to learn how to make my contributions better, so that I can be of help to the Doctor Who WikiProject, and also exercise some of my creative writing muscles.
Also, I don't know how to remove the Edit Box once one has completed it, although I suspect that's something that's done by those who put it there in the first place once it's been determined the task has been satisfactorily accomplished, and that probably happens once consensus is reached by the community that the task is done.  Yeah, guess it's kinda obvious with those comments what a newbie I am, isn't it? :-)
Any and all feedback/guidance/pointers/whopping great mistakes what I missed pointing-out is very much appreciated.  Thanks in advance to all. --Sherlockspock (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Beast Below/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Will get to this weekend. Ruby 2010/2013 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
The plot summary is a bit long, but I understand more detail is often needed for complicated episodes. Is there anything trivial that can be taken out or reworded?
I noticed this too but there was nothing major I could cut out as everything is sort of connected to the reason behind what is going on with the ship, though I did remove some things. If you can think of any other suggestions please tell me. Glimmer721 talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"Gillan put in some of her own wonder at the set into the scene where Amy admires the street for the first time.[8]" I see what you're trying to say here, but this could be rephrased a little to make it more clear
Reworded. Glimmer721 talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"IGN's Matt Wales was more mixed..." You mean his opinion was mixed?
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"He considered it it imaginative..."
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Refs: Make sure they're all lowercase in the titles.
Fixed. Glimmer721 talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do you have publishers for some of the refs, but not for others?
Fixed, I think (Metro seemed to be the only one). Glimmer721 talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The article looks great overall. Just address the above issues and it will be good to go!

Looks good! Happy to pass this one. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is only one known space whale in the universe, and Scotland wanted their own ship, what drives the Scottish ship. (or was it eaten by the goat?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.70.64 (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 
Maybe the Scottish ship had an actual engine, instead of using some endangered animal for propulsion!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.71.86 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 
It was rather interesting that Liz (or was it the winder?) said that England was the last nation left on earth and all the others had fled to space already (I am not quoting exactly here). It would be very interesting to know why England was left behind. Perhaps they were sitting by, waiting for the Doctor to rescue them?
This is a talk page, not a forum JohnSmith5000100 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It says mixed but the worst rating mentioned is 7/10 and there are several 4/5s - that sounds better than mixed to me. -- Beardo (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "positive to mixed", since there's some of each. Glimmer721 talk 14:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)