Talk:Gridlock (Doctor Who)

message: I note that the article states that Boe's secret is three words long, and not four as is commonly believed.  Is this an error, or has there been an update from RTD?  Either way, where's the citation? Steffan Alun 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may arise from confusion due to the popular use of the contraction "you're" to represent "you are". You know, that crazy Face of Boe's always slurring his speech and stuff. =P --Ayelis 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Words or Three 

message: The Macra Terror:
The hidden monsters in this episode are confirmed to be mutated (the Doctor says "devolved") Macra, from The Macra Terror. Kelvingreen 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity:

message: the Face of Boe's last words are "you are not alone," although the Doctor tells Martha this is a lie and says he is alone.--
Lerdthenerd 19:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I don't agree with posting spoilers like this, I didn't thought it right to delete this as well. I put up two spoiler tags, and Lerdthenerd should remember that this is NOT a discussion forum about Doctor Who. --217.120.159.198 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so we've got this straight, 217.120.159.198 was me, not logged in. --Quadratus 19:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't exactly unexpected, though. Er, to make this on-topic, maybe it's notable that this was so widely-guessed / anticipated by Davies' Time War article in a Doctor Who Magazine one time? 217.42.64.91 19:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. When I saw it, I yelled "YES! I KNEW IT!", and I keep hearing people say things alot like that. Everyone who cared to read up on the episode probably knew this. --Quadratus 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I also added a black table to the post, I loathe this. Just select to read.--Quadratus 19:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do this though as it is in the main article and the episode has now aired? AlanD 20:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People might still not have seen it. Besides, not a discussion forum. --Quadratus 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps but still it has aired and is in main article, just seems oddAlanD 20:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but Lerdthenerd is clearly posting this with the sole intent of spoiling it. He's bloody labeled it *spoiler*! --Quadratus 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  *spoiler!* Face of Boe's last words! 

message: The first hymn in this episode may very well be The Old Rugged Cross, but I'm pretty sure the second one (towards the end of the episode) was different. Any ideas? Kelvingreen 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think that much about it at the time, but ever since watching it I've realised that instead of The Old Rugged Cross, I've actually got Abide With Me buzzing around my head. Was that the end hymn perhaps? ~~ Peteb16 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. I'm almost certain that the hymn heard as the Doctor speaks to Martha at the end of the episode was indeed Abide With Me - Silver Nemesis 21:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it was definitely Abide with Me, but I couldn't remember the name! Thanks for reminding me, and for adding it to the page. Kelvingreen 21:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hymns 

message: We really should only have one image. --GracieLizzie 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One image 

message: Presumably when Lineker said "Welcome back to the TARDIS" after half time he was in part making a joking reference to the small observation boxes provided for press at football grounds.  I didn't watch the match so I don't know for sure that he was on-site,or whether he was in a regular BBC television studio. Did anyone see that? --Tony Sidaway 11:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed as though it was intentinal but I dunno if it was a teleprompter technician messing around, Linekers' sense of humour, or a flub (heh, he might have been hoping to watch WHO that night too). --GracieLizzie 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like classic Lineker "humour" to me... Totnesmartin 22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Football match

message: I've reverted a supposed reference to Bad Wolf as this seems to be based on original research. Looks like I caused some collateral damage, which I'll repair. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Japanese, so I can't confirm that the poster does in fact say "Bad Wolf". That said, how does the fact that it's written in Japanese make it "original research"? There are millions of people who'd know at a glance whether or not that's an accurate translation. JCub 13:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The criteria for inclusion is verifiability.. Japanese text I imagine is easily verifiable in this day and age, translators.. etc. Matthew 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text that appears is 悪狼 according to a screenshot someone posted on the OG forums. Several people there have said it does mean (roughly) mean bad wolf in kanji (I am not so sure about hanzi, it 悪 doesn't translate as anything in bablefish's  Chinese Simple and Chinese Traditional modes, but it translates as "Bad" in Japanese and 狼 is "wolf" in all three), and the rikaichan plug in I have would verify this as well these links. Bad wolf is not the only translation, you can also get "unwell wolf" and even "vomiting wolf" from it too o_0()--GracieLizzie 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I tried to find the poster referred to but it didn't seem to be easily visible in the frame I froze.  As this is a minor point I think we can await something more definitive than non-Japanese speakers saying they've been told by a friend of a friend that the characters say "Bad Wolf". --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the image cropped from a a screencap that was posted on OG http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=akuokamivc4.jpg I may not be a Japanese speaker but it shouldn't be too hard to find someone who is who can definately verify this however all of the software/translations sites/etc seem to indicate to me that 悪狼 can mean "bad wolf" (just cut and paste it into bablefish and select Japanese to English to see for yourself). Also, notice what's on the poster, a vaguely Rose-ish looking girl! --GracieLizzie 15:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I know nothing about Japanese I can't confirm that the characters you cite above are the same as those on the poster.  The most I can say about the human figure in the poster is that it could conceivably be female and could conceivably be intended to represent a European. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've just removed a second reference to the supposed "Bad Wolf" poster. If it's inserted again I won't remove it, but I would prefer this to remain out of the article until it can be reasonably verified. --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure how you can expect for it to be verified without accepting that some Japanese speakers noticed it in the first place and that it checks out on various online translators. I admit that I was the one who originally added the reference to this article having emailed someone I know who teaches Japanese as to whether those characters can be translated to roughly "bad wolf" and she said yes, although as mentioned above there are other more accurate translations. I am going to email the BBC about it, and unless they deny it, I shall re-add it to this article because I don't see what else can be done. Clockwork Apricot 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Wolf?

message: "** This may be something to do with the fact that The Doctor is half-human, and so there is only one 'proper' timelord elsewhere" I read this in the continuaty section and was pretty sure that it was still a theory and we wern't aloud to say it, should it be deleted?--Wiggstar69 19:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Doctor, or, at least, his eighth incarnation was half-human, but it's still not appropriate. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we aloud to say that? 

message: As most are aware, the 9th episode of Doctor Who's current season is called "Bliss".  Now that we know what Bliss is and how it almost wiped out the human race, I am sure Bliss involves the Doctor doing what he can to stop the people who created it from destroying his favorite people.  As the producer states that this is the last visit to New Earth, Bliss was crearted apparently in far future after events in "New Earth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanLKaufman (talk • contribs) 
:But that's bollocks... DBD 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called Blink, I'm afraid --OZOO (vote saxon) 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bliss 

message: *Just after waking up in the hover car Martha says "take me back" as Rose did in The Parting Of The Ways, The Satan Pit and Doomsday after the Doctor sends her home, when the rocket leaves Krop Tor, and when she gets stuck in the parallel universe respectively.
Is this a notable fact? I don't really think that repeated use of the line "Take me back" is necessarily anything significant in a show about travelling. BreathingMeat 23:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be an item, not for an encyclopedia, but for a biblical style concordance of the Doctor Who television series. --Tony Sidaway 11:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take Me Back 

message: *most Doctor Who episodes prior to the new series were half an hour in length while all Star Trek episodes are one hour
Actually most of the "half hour" episodes were about 25 minutes. Star Trek: TOS episodes were about 50 minutes excluding commercials, while the subsequent series had running times of between 42 and 46 minutes. If there's some genius out there who can work out the exact combined length of all the Star Trek and Doctor Who series, he's a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Lee M 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lengths of science fiction film and television series is a good source - in canon, Doctor Who has 13 days, 21 hours, and 10/37 minutes (depending on the canonicity of the Pudsey Cutaway, TARDISodes, and The Infinite Quest), while Star Trek has had 22 days, eight hours, and 33 minutes. Assuming that there are no more Star Trek episodes, and we keep having 13 episodes + 1 Christmas special (at 45 and 60 minutes respectively) each year, it will take 255 and a bit episodes for Doctor Who to catch up to Star Trek in terms of time - during Series 21 (!), 4 minutes into the third episode. As we don't know the length of Star Trek XI, we can't factor that in. If that's about three hours long, it would be four minutes into the seventh episode. At least, that's to my calculations. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 13:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Movies don't count towards the total running time for a TV series. - LeonWhite 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In any case it isn't going in unless we have a reliable source for the comparisons.  Guinness appears to go solely by number of episodes. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not intending for the calculations I made to go on the mainspace - just a bit of harmless fun and a bit of interest, and I suspect I got them wrong anyway =). Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode lengths 

message: Okay, we've got a good source for the Doctor Who record and that's in the article.  But I removed, in two successive edits, some extensive speculation based on episode lengths, spin-offs and the like:
: However, the Star Trek total includes all the various (live action) spin off shows - by the same logic, taking Torchwood, 1981's K9 and Company and 2007's The Sarah Jane Adventures - Invasion of the Bane into account, the record was broken by Day One (2006), the second episode of Torchwood. On the other hand, most Doctor Who episodes prior to the new series were half an hour in length while all Star Trek episodes are 45 minutes, so Trek still has had more hours of programming.
We don't put our own comparisons into the work.  We write about the comparisons performed by reputable and reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which begins: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but it's not the job of Wikipedia to report "the truth".  Wikipedia's job is to record what reliable sources have said.  Doing otherwise is against our no original research policy.  These are the core principles of Wikipedia.  You won't get far arguing against them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons, records and original research

message: Was it just me, or was this episode packed with Futurama references? For example, the episode was set in  New New York, one of the main characters was called Brannigan, there was a huge  head in a jar, and possibly more references that I didn't pick up on. Tombrabbin 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll concede Brannigan as a probable reference. It's hard to get reliable sources for this kind of thing, though. Davies did say that the businessman was modelled on Max Normal from Judge Dredd, but we have nothing comparable, that I'm aware of, for any of the supposed Futurama references. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Futurama References?

message: Gridlock of flying cars in New York: The Fifth Element. The bureaucracy: Brazil and Terry Gilliam's works in general. Turning off the car's electrical systems to hide: not just the submarine movies Martha refers to, but also The Matrix. The people of the upper city dying in their seats due to a supposedly benign drug: Serenity. --FOo 07:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By references here you appear to mean simply "images of these generic concepts have appeared before in science fiction."  Do we adopt this loose criterion, or when we say "reference" do we mean something more specific? --Tony Sidaway 10:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FOo: They're not references without citations. Matthew 10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  there were mentions in the dr who confidential, and the radio times behind the scenes for this episode of several sci fi films that had "inspired" this ep, incuding the fifth element and bladerunner, but that was only in terms of a more general theme and look (big, smoggy, grimey future cities), and it was just a general insperation, no mention of any specific referances.  Firandhappy 19th April 2007
Obviously, what I meant by "visual references" were motifs within the episode, not "references" in the sense of "citations". :) --FOo 05:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would call such things "similarities" rather than references if there is no citation. Same goes for a lot of stuff in the continuity and production sections of these Doctor Who episode articles. Personally I don't think similarities are notable enough to include.BreathingMeat 22:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thick with visual references 

message: :Image:Boe.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Boe.jpg

message: This edit war re the caption under the Face of Boe picture is getting old. Can we please debate it here and make up our minds? BreathingMeat 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me - I've no position on the matter, and will help to maintain whatever the consensus is. (I thought it was for non-quote captions, but let me know if that has changed.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it only the one single-purpose IP who is reworking the captions? They've all been changed again. --Ckatzchatspy 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: I am thinking of adding this reference in the continuity to other episode section where the arrow is still in the door. This from Silver Nemesis The following from talk on Shakespeare code was removed.  I think it might fit better in gridlock.
    
*The arrow embedding into the TARDIS's front door at the end of this story is reminiscent of an earlier Seventh Doctor adventure Silver Nemesis when Lady Peinforte shoots an arrow at the Doctor and Ace as they make their escape.
currently the text reads.
*As the Doctor leaves the TARDIS at the start of the episode, he pulls out the arrow that was embedded in the door at the end of that episode.
If I see no objection I would like to change it to read 
*As the Doctor leaves the TARDIS at the start of the episode, he pulls out the arrow that was embedded in the door at the end of that episode. This is is reminiscent of an earlier Seventh Doctor adventure Silver Nemesis when Lady Peinforte shoots an arrow that also sticks into the TARDIS door.  SheepDoll 08:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with adding this is that there's no evidence to suggest this was a deliberate nod to that Cybermen story.  As such, it's speculative on your part.  Mark H Wilkinson 08:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrow in the Tardis door 

message: I've recently requested a citation for a continuity note which now stands as*In the car of the two Asiatic girls, there is a poster on the wall with the characters 悪狼, which mean bad wolf in Japanese.OZOO has suggested using Babelfish as a reference.  Is this acceptable practice?  Mark H Wilkinson 09:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need a reference for it? Anyone can check it in any online dictionary. For example 悪狼 or 悪 狼. It is by the way not strictly true to say that the characters are Japanese. They are as much Chinese as Japanese. If the Japanese had a common expression for "bad wolf" they would probably write it like that, but as far as I know they don't, even though all Japanese understand the characters. Mlewan 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, reading the relevant part of WP:V appears to suggest we needn't provide a reference, as long as we include both the source characters and the translation. I'll edit accordingly, cheers.  Mark H Wilkinson 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a second look at the screen shot, and it definitely is the Japanese variant of the Chinese character. The variant in traditional Chinese for this character is 惡 and the simplified variant is 恶. Mlewan 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still Kanji, aren't they?  Mark H Wilkinson 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Kanji means "Chinese character" in Japanese. Basically all three characters 悪,惡 and 恶 are "the same", but 悪 is the Japanese way of writing it. If you want to understand it better you can also check the Unihan article. If you want to understand it less, you can check my homepage on the subject. Mlewan 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Wolf in Japanese 

message: I'm almost certain this line from The Two Doctors (spoken by the Sixth Doctor) is spoken by the male carjacker to explain away the noises made by the Macra, but I haven't seen Gridlock again to make sure.
 "It's just the hydrolics. Some of these systems are very old, there's bound to be the odd wheeze."
--HyperBlossom 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to ''The Two Doctors''? 

message: I linked Sally Calypso, as I thought I remembered reading a section on her in a compilation article. Unfortunately, Sally Calypso doesn't redirect to that article. If anyone else can find it, please redirect properly (or you can create your own). If not, please remove the link. I am leaving it as a link to inspire someone to do something.
-- trlkly 08:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sally Calypso 

message: As the nude couple appear ashamed of their nudity (to the Doctor) and with the lack of an on-screen nudist reference, I have changed the couple to be nude, which resolves the OR issue by being immediately observable.
Hope that made sense
-- trlkly 09:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nudist Couple 

message: I've changed the American Gothic note to refer to "the farming couple". According to the linked Wikipedia article, the suggestion that the painting depicts a father and daughter is that of one of the sitters for the painting. It is usually taken to represent a husband and wife. "Farming couple" is general enough I hope. Klippa 02:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Gothic 

message: Why was the "farming couple" (aka American Gothic) in the "Fast Lane" with only 2 people? Myksmith (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As they clearly said in the first 2 minutes of the episode, they lied to the computer. That's why they thought they got no police service. Please also note that talkpages areonly for improving the article, not general discussions. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 06:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible plot error 

message: When the Doctor asks Brannigan how long he'll keep on driving, Brannigan replies, "Till the journey's end". This would seem to be a pre-figuring (or whatever the word would be) of the Season 4 closer, "Journey's End". Jeff (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 09:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  inter-episode reference? 

message: I removed the misleading fact that Gridlock broke a record when it became the Doctor Who episode that outnumbered the total number of Star Trek episodes. That was based on a false premise in counting one show Doctor Who but not its spinoffs and counting six seperate Star Trek shows. That count is unfair and the very basis of it seems bias Star Trek itself because it has effectively stated that Star Trek spinoffs but not ones that came out of Doctor Who. If the count was done fairly in counting all Whoniverse episodes one would have found that the Torchwood episode Ghost Machine was the 727th Whoniverse episode and therefore the one that overtook the total number of Star Trek episodes. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you think the methodology is fair or not is beside the point. If a source says that according to the Guinness Records Doctor Who became the longest running science fiction programme on a certain date, then that is a verifiable fact and may be suitable for inclusion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gridlock did not break any records 

message: I also removed the fact about the Guinness Book of Records as that had nothing to do with the number of Doctor Who and Star Trek episodes which had previously followed about publicity making the mistake that Gridlock overtook the total number of Star Trek episodes in this article which I also removed. The Guinness Book of Records was instead about Doctor Who and Stargate SG-1 therefore it is irrelevant here because there was no mention in publicity about Gridlock about either the Guinness Book of Records nor about Stargate SG-1. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinness Book of Records 

message: I have never edited a wiki page before so I was unsure whether this should be included (maybe in the production section or trivia?) but at approximately 2:20 into the episode, just after Martha asks 'Lots of planets in the sky?' a boom mic appears in shot for a second at the top of the screen. Jay A 213.123.122.209 (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Such mistakes may be reported on Wikipedia, provided they satisfy the core policy on verifiability, and don't breach the core policy on original research. That is, it's not sufficient that you have noticed it - somebody else must have described the occurrence and published it elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Erm, quite apart from verifiability, this is of no interest whatsoever. Mezigue (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boom Mic 

message: Following up recent reverting with TedEdwards. My reasoning for referring to him as "The Doctor" in the lead paragraph is as follows. The character's name in the show and more generally within the series is "The Doctor". Using a term such as "Tenth Doctor" seems very internal to the fan-base and not something I would expect in a general explanation on Wikipedia. I'm more forgiving of such terms within articles, but at least the lead section should avoid such terms (unless explained). In particular because the lead section currently even explains what the character is to readers unfamiliar with the series (He is an "alien time traveller"). Such introductory statements seem incompatible with unexplained use of an internal term like "Tenth Doctor".
In short, I'm a fan of the show and quite familiar with these terms. But, a lead section is meant to be widely accessible for the audience and should avoid this phrase, or it explain it (perhaps in brackets, like we do with the actor's name). --Krinkle (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's been like that for a long time, I can't see any reason to change it. I just assumed you were changing it because he's technically the 11th incarnation, which would be WP:INUNIVERSE. Evidently that is not the reason, so I'll just leave it as you left it. TedEdwards 20:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifier for the Doctor