Talk:Rose (Doctor Who episode)/Archive 1

message: How appropriate that someone travelled back in time to write this article.... the article itself says it is not due to be aired for another three days! Pcb21| Pete 12:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! :) If this is genuine confusion, see Note 2. :) --khaosworks 15:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep I saw the note about the leak, but thought the first line - "which originally aired on March 26, 2005" - should perhaps be "will air on..." but it will be fine in few days. Nice work on the synposis. Pcb21| Pete 16:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time travelling

message: The Doctor Who box looks great; the only production credit which may deserve an addition is Script Editor, since the Script Editors were so instrumental to the eras of the early series. I must admit I don't know if the new series has a Script Editor credit... (I haven't seen it the first episode yet -- I skipped most of the spoiler in this article.) --Guybrush 04:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who box 

message: Why was this page moved to Doctor Who episode 161: Rose? What was wrong with the old title? BillyH 22:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question! These things should now be discussed at wikipedia:Wikiproject Doctor Who as an appropriate forum for drastic changes to existing articles Tim! (talk) 22:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I have added a note to the article (Note 20) but someone might want to put in all the links. I have not seen anyone else make the suggestion that the Titanic adventure takes place while the Doc is away for a few seconds at the end of the episode, if there is a flaw in my reasoning, by all means delete the note. (Damian)
:Hi. I deleted the note, and I thought I put my reasons in the edit summary, but here they are again. We see the picture of the Doctor at Southampton, but we have no indication he actually went on the Titanic (tellingly, the family he posed with did not go on the Titanic). While it is entirely possible he went to the Kennedy assassination, Krakatoa, etc. during his little jaunt near the end after he leaves Rose and before he returns, we have no real evidence for this. In any case, even if he did return, it does not necessarily mean he did so because he "felt" for Rose. Another possible reason (also speculative, which is why it's not there) may be because he saw some evidence that he and Rose would be travelling together in the future, so he went back because he knew that had to happen. --khaosworks 23:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
::Buuuuuuut...... As I said, in Aliens of London the Doctor says he DID go on the Titanic. It is possible that it was a previous Doctor that went ON the ship, and the Ninth only went NEAR the ship, but you can assume that with some many times and places to visit in his short 900 year lifetime, he isn't going to visit the same 'little' ship twice. Therefore I believe we can reasonably assume it WAS this Doctor that went on the ship (after warning the family he poses with not to, the kind of thing the Doctor is likely to do) and that the end of 'Rose' is the most likely point at which to do it. Thank you for explaining why you deleted my note. I won't put it back until I hear a third opinion. (Damian)
:::If you take the novels as any kind of evidence, the Doctor may have visited the Titanic multiple times. He materialises the TARDIS on board it in The Left-Handed Hummingbird by Kate Orman, but he does not hang around to be "clinging to an iceberg". --khaosworks 13:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:::I've added a new Note that might address your points in a more non-speculative way (or at least grants it is only a possibility). --khaosworks 13:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:::: Isn't this bit at the end of the episode the ONLY time the Ninth Doctor is away from Rose? In which case, surely both the picture and the painting we see earlier in the episode must have been taken/drawn in this time. Which places the Titanic adventure here.
:::::He also leaves Rose at her council estate only to show up again in the restaurant where she is with the faux Mickey. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Missing' Titanic Adventure 

message: This is Clive's line, from Doctor Who: The Shooting Scripts:
:"1883, another Doctor — look, the same lineage, he's identical — this one was washed up on the coast of Sumatra, on the very night that Krakatoa erupted." 
The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa is famous, and its effects were felt world-wide.  There may or may not have been a minor eruption in 1880, but the vast majority of the evidence suggests that the website is simply in error.  And we've got a note about that on the page, so there's no need to add it to the episode summary as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the avoidance of doubt, see http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano-tours/volcanoes/indonesia/west_java/krakatau/ which lists the dates for eruptions for Krakatau (the local name for Krakatoa) - prior to 1883, the last eruption was in the 17th century. Of course, that doesn't mean that in the Whoniverse there wasn't an eruption in 1880, but everything in the context of Clive's dialogue points to the most famous 1883 eruption. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krakatoa 

message: I haven't seen the email from the BBC website that apparently referred to the "Rose goes to work" music as the "Flavius" theme.  However, I've just received the Series One DVD, and in the commentary for this episode Russell T. Davies and Phil Collinson refer to the spooky female vocals (first heard as the Doctor walks to the TARDIS after the "turn of the earth" speech) as "President Flavia", a reference to the Time Lady seen as Chancellor in The Five Doctors and later referred to as President.  (Was she called President Flavia in The Trial of a Time Lord, or was that just fanon that was later included into the novels?  I can't remember.)  It seems likely to me that some wires got crossed somewhere, and someone unfamiliar with the character heard "Flavia's theme" as "Flavius theme".  At any rate, I think that the DVD commentary by the producers is a more reliable source than an email from the website, so I'll change the note accordingly.  Someone should probably add mentions of the other times that theme is heard in the series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That actually makes a hell of a lot more sense than "Flavius" theme - in fact, I suspected it might be Flavia (I believe I corrected it to that when it was first introduced into the article, but it got changed back). She wasn't President in The Five Doctors, but the Doctor told her to be acting president until he got back. We only find out later in the novels that she did become President and got removed from office after a scandal involving her being drunk while in charge of the Sash of Rassilon (mentioned in Happy Endings I think). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I remember the references to her in the New Adventures (and how they were roughly contradicted by Terrance Dicks in The Eight Doctors, where she was President again, with no sign of her NA successor Romana).  I just wasn't sure whether she got a namecheck in Trial as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said from the start, no one doubts your veracity. It was the veracity of the information we weren't sure of. Now it's cleared up. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I've just gotten an e-mail back from the BBC site. Whoever he is, he confirms that it's not the "Rose going to work" theme but the one used when the Doctor kisses Rose in POTW, and the same one that Davies refers to as Flavia's theme. in the DVD commentary. He also confirms that the spelling is Flavia's, not Flavius. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the "Flavius"/Flavia theme 

message: I've just spotted that the BBFC website shows two different versions of this episode. Both are rated PG, but one is 40 seconds longer, and has "Language: once, very mild" instead of "Language: none". Has anyone spotted two different versions? It looks like two different versions were submitted simultaneously for the DVD approval — does the released DVD version match the TV broadcast? --KJBracey 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't catch anything. There is some innuendo between Mickey and Rose that I didn't catch the first time (When Rose goes to Mickey's place to use his PC he says to her, "OK, kit off!" but I can't say for certain if that wasn't on the televised version). Speaking of alternate versions, does anyone know what Sci-Fi plans to do with Rose and End of the World when they air the 2-hour premiere of the series in March? Will they edit the two episodes together? 23skidoo 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate versions 

message: This may be premature, but is there any news on the ratings for the U.S. premiere of Rose yet?
I appreciate that their system may well not have an 'overnight' figure, but if it does then it might be worth recording in the page.
DavidFarmbrough 11:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they do have overnight figures, as I've seen them reported for Enterprise and Battlestar Galactica in the past, but for some reason the ratings for Doctor Who weren't reported anywhere. I would imagine such numbers should be available today (Monday). Personally I ignore overnights because they are never accurate and the final figure usually ends up being either much higher or much lower than reported initially. Also apparently only the initial showing will be rated, and not the replay which followed and I know a lot of people watched it instead of the first showing... 23skidoo 12:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. DavidFarmbrough 13:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Ratings? 

message: The odds of RTD realizing the connection to Delta and the Bannerman is probably very slim, but I thought it was still a neat coincidence. Perhaps the "Guys and Dolls" could also be a reference to the Autons ... but that's stretching it a bit... 23skidoo 23:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Luck Be a Lady ...

message: I think its just an interesting historical piece of trivia that the first of the new series of Doctor Who reintroduces an enemy first seen in the first colour Doctor Who.   Morwen - Talk 18:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colour

message: Even though I have yet to read the book, my first stumbling-upon it struck me as startling...
Does this mention of the Ninth Doctor's presence in the episode discount or warp the account of that book? Or the otherwise...
I think a mention of it is in any case essential, even though it's rather uncanonical other books tend to be mentioned. 
DrWho42 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no harm in mentioning it, but there's nothing in the "Rose" episode to discount or support anything that occurs in Who Killed Kennedy. All we know is that the Ninth Doctor was in the crowd. 23skidoo 00:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Who Killed Kennedy]]''? 

message: Obviously, this page is called "Rose (Doctor Who)" because there's a need to disambiguate it from other "Rose"s. However, there is no real necessity to further disambiguate it because "Rose (Doctor Who)" never existed as a separate page that required disambiguating (unlike "Dalek (Doctor Who)", which did exist prior to the episode's broadcast, hence necessitating a disambiguating term). 
Disambiguation is to help people use Wikipedia to find what they want, and should reflect the way people actually use the encyclopedia. When people want to find information about Rose Tyler, they'll type in "Rose Tyler" and reach the right article. If people aren't sure, they'll type "Rose" and be ultimately directed to the "Rose" disambiguation page and find her from there. If they want to find "Rose" the episode, the latter situation similarly applies. Nobody is going to type in "Rose (Doctor Who)" (or at least it's very unlikely that a casual user will do so), because people don't normally disambiguate in their normal use of the term.
We should disambiguate when it is actually necessary, and such disambiguation should reflect real world usage, not be disambiguating for the sake of disambiguating. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: I just did a major revamp on the page in an attempt to work the Trivia information into the body of the article. Mostly I just organized it into various sections, with some rewording. I think it mostly still reads as "bullets," although I tried to smooth it out into a more prose-like format. Obviously there's still work to be done. I believe I only out-and-out deleted two items - the link between the mention of the Kennedy assassination and the airing of An Unearthly Child, while possibly true, seemed like original research to me; and the reference to "World's End" on the bus Rose takes seemed way too trivial, given that it isn't even visible in the episode. I also revamped the references - I changed to the "cite" template format, which, while admittedly harder for editors, is easier for readers; and I found a new reference for one of them, which was a broken link.
I've (slowly) been doing these types of changes for the original series. While I think much of the information in the "Trivia" sections is worthwhile, in its present format it doesn't come across as particularly encyclopedic. I jumped ahead to this article because, as the first episode of the new series, it's often used as an example of Doctor Who episode articles, and I thought an attempt should be made to make it more than just a plot summary and a trivia dump. Hope nobody was bothered by me being so bold... --Brian Olsen 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an improvement.  Well done, Brian. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that with two comments: one, the arrangement of sections could do with a little discussion (i.e., which should come first). So far, I've been doing, in order: Cast, Music, Continuity, Production, Outside References, then Broadcast and DVD releases. Two, I think we should get away from the idea that bullets are necessarily evil (I don't know anything policy or guideline wise that supports such a contention aside from aesthetic reasons). Bulletting in some circumstances is more distinct and less confusing that a series of more-or-less disconnected paragraphs and sometimes should be retained for clarity's sake. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Manual of style#Bulleted lists says "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted."  I think that in a case like this, we're better off putting loosely grouped items of information together as prose rather than as a bulleted list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! And I've no particular attachment to the order of sections - my thinking had been that Production just seemed like it should come first, since it deals with the creation of the episode, but I can see Continuity coming first, to more closely follow the Plot section. Should we move this discussion to the main project page, with the goal of eventually adding a set order to the style guide? I've a few more comments, but we may want to open up the discussion a bit more first. --Brian Olsen 17:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page reorganization

message: We assume it's 2005, but she doesn't return until a year later (Aliens of London).
--Anthrcer 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is it set?