Talk:The Shakespeare Code

message: I removed the comment about the power of names being a reference to Earthsea. The magical power of someone's true name is common in mythology and fiction, and I don't think in this case that it is a reference to Earthsea. Iregretthisname 22:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I am almost sure I remember reading an article or seeing an interview where RTD says something along the lines that the episode won't refer to the past appearences/name droppings of Shakespeare but it won't contradict them either. Does anyone else remember this? And if so can you find a link to it so it can be cited? --GracieLizzie 12:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... it sounds familiar, but I can't place it off the top of my head.  I'll have a look round.  If I fail to find it, Gareth Roberts says something similar in the latest DWM, which will probably suffice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it, it's in the Newsround interview with Lizo Mzimba. It's not in the written version but it's in Newsround Player video. But if you have a similar comment from Gareth Roberts, Josiah maybe adding it would also strengthen the comment? --GracieLizzie 14:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it — sorry I forgot about this for so long. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) --GracieLizzie 17:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I remember reading something I want to cite 

message: probably should mention in this article that it was a book title published in 2000, three years before "The Da Vinci Code" was published
:You're right, I looked it up and the book in question seems to be a text book by a Virginia Fellows, . While I doubt that this book is the inspiration for the title of the this episode it does raise an issue. Should this article be moved to The Shakespeare Code (Doctor Who) and have the current page become a disambiguation page? --GracieLizzie 13:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If someone creates the page for the book then it can read "The Shakespeare Code (book)". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought we'd have "The Shakespeare Code (book)" and "The Shakespeare Code (Doctor Who)" with "The Shakespeare Code" being a disambiguation page (like Everything Changes, Everything Changes (Torchwood), and Everything Changes (Take That album))? --GracieLizzie 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's only two items that need to be distinguished from one another, there's no real need for an extra disambiguation page. A  tag will suffice. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added a "Distinguish2" to the page for the time being, should someone make an article on the book it can be linked with a different "otheruses" template. However if the book does yet added which should get the use of the "unsuffixed" page? After all the book did come first. --GracieLizzie 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a matter of first in time anywhere, really, neither is it a hard and fast rule. Ultimately, it's down to a judgment call on which is more notable, or which we think people are coming to look for. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  it was a book far before this episode 

message: I'm just wondering, is there any information that can certify the synopsis someone added to the article as factual? Could this be added as a citation? Thank you. Hikan 19:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis? 

message: "The Sixth Doctor quotes from Shakespeare's Hamlet in The Two Doctors, while lamenting the death of Botcherby."
Wasn't it Botcherby himself ("To die, to sleep; to sleep, perchance to dream")? --Jawr256 09:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the Sixth Doctor says, "Goodnight, sweep prince," as well when Oscar dies. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: The article states this is the third 'celebrity historical' after 'Unquiet Dead' and 'Tooth and Claw'.  Surely 'Girl in the Fireplace' is one also?  That would make this the fourth... Gwinva 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Madam de Pompadour may be a famous historical figure, she's not a household name like Dickens, Queen Victoria, or Shakespeare. I didn't even know who she was until I looked her up before episode so I'd have some idea who she was. --GracieLizzie 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Madame de Pompadour certainly would be a household name if you were French or at least moderately Francophile.  Why should the Doctor be Anglocentric?  I think that this one is fairly called a celebrity historical.  Even a Yank like myself knows of Madame de Pompadour.IanThal 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, DW is Anglocentric because it's British. Like Stargate and such are Americacentric because their American ::shrugs:: I thought Madame de Pompadour might have such fame in France, but I didn't want to assume this and the be incorrect. Although I suppose if someone like George Washington, Napoleon or Tutankhamen who aren't British but still household names ever appear in DW that would be a Celebrity Historical too. --GracieLizzie 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: While I'm not disagreeing that TGitF isn't a celebrity historical, I'd argue that Queen Vic did plenty. She set up Torchwood! --GracieLizzie 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's not celebrity historical about TGITF?  She was well-known during her time, and is considered a major historical figure now; the action in the episode took place in her time, fitting in with known aspects of her life (ie not fantastical).  And, most convincingly, The Doctor certainly considered M du Pompadour a celebrity! "I just snogged Madam du Pompadour!" has to rank as one of the most excited/impressed statements the Doctor's made (and it was not the kiss, but her identity that impressed him).  I would like to see a reliable source discount it as a celebrity historical. Gwinva 16:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well RTD talks about the celebrity historicals here and he doesn't mention Madame P. Also, the Doctor is expected to be more familiar with History than your average viewer, as his a time-traveller and such as I said she is well known enough for many people have heard of her but she's not as "household" a name in Britain as Shakespeare, Dickens, or Queen Victoria... whereas in France she probably is, but she isn't in the program's country of origin. GracieLizzie 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it has a little more to do with the context in which the character is met. Dickens was met in his time period and the baddies fit in the time frame, i.e. ghosts. Victoria was her time period,and the baddies were monks and werewolves. Here, Shakespeare will be in his time period and against witches, not out of place at all. But Madame de Pompadour was technically met through a link int he future. It had a bit of a grounding in history, but the overall story was more future sci-fi than historical. She was met through a spaceship from more than three thousand years in the true, and the baddies were robots from said future. It just doesn't feel as historical as the others do. Of course I could be completly off track, but that is the only real difference I can see. Or maybe Russ just wants to be a jerk to Steve. TheGreenFaerae 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon The Girl in the Fireplace balances its historical & futuristic elements very elegantly. Although there are sci-fi futuristic elements (deep space, starship, robots etc.), Moffat makes the robots an advanced form of clockwork (which resonates beautifully with the 18th century's state-of-the-art technology), making the foes as apt as the others you mention. Also, Renette is FAR better fleshed out as a character than the pretty standard Queen Victoria of Tooth & Claw, especially as you see the young girl's life unfold and progress through the narrative device of the time jumps. Vivamancer 09:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, personally, I believe Girl in the Fireplace was the best episode of the new series, I was just saying that was the only differences I saw between them and Russel's "official" celebrity historicals. TheGreenFaerae 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  Seems like there's a certain potential for confusion between "Celebrity Historical" as the name for a Dr Who sub-genre which Russell T Davies credits himself with inventing and "Celebrity Historical" as a Dr Who plot which involves a well-known historical figure.  So, Davies is thinking of "Unquiet Dead, Tooth and Claw, Shakespeare Code" as his "Celebrity Historical" trilogy, to go along with his "Year Five Billion" trilogy, "End of the World, New Earth, Gridlock".  But I'd agree with those who argue that Mme Pompadour is certainly as significant a personality as Victoria, Dickens and Shakespeare.  I'd suggest the *article* count Girl in the Fireplace, but references to "three celebrity historicals" only when quoting Davies directly.  PaulHammond 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'celebrity historical' 

message: This isn't definite yet but the rumors are that Face of Boe will tell his big secret in this episode, although im not sure how that would fit into this plot
--Wiggstar69 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely Episode 3, sorry. Episode 3 (or possibly "Flesh and Bone") is set in New New York on New Earth, the last place we saw the Face of Boe. We have been given no evidence that he can temporally travel so we must assume he is still there. Also in the new 20-second trailer, he can be seen with the Doctor, sandwiched between footage that is clearly set on New Earth. Clockwork Apricot 13:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, that make more sence, I couldn't really see how it would fit into this episode.--Wiggstar69 14:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face of Boe 

message: Smeggles has added some great pictures on the different pages, although this particular one isn't as good as the one before it of William Shakespeare, if anyone thinks the same please say.--Wiggstar69 18:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Shakespeare picture is better than the Lilith one: the episode is called "The Shakespeare Code", not "The Lilith Code".  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Now, those names have been being posted - unsourced - by various users for a long time (I mean Lilith, Dick and Kemp). However, the preview at Freema'as fansite gives the names of them as: Lilith (the youngish one), Doomfinger and something I can't catch. Does the preview count as a source?--Rambutan (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast names 

message: The Doctor recognises Elizabeth, and she recognises him, greeting him with hostility and demanding his death. The Doctor doesn't know why, as he "hasn't met her yet". Presumably this references a future adventure, perhaps in Series Four (as Elizabeth recognises the Tenth Doctor specifically, not a later regeneration). It should perhaps be mentioned, but since it references an adventure that has not appeared, and indeed may not appear, I'm not sure of the best way to add it to the article. Kelvingreen 18:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps when talking about the "celebrity historicals" in the continuity section, it could be mentioned that a future adventure with Elizabeth I is very probable given the ending of this episode. And knowing RTD, it will almost certainly be in next year's series. U-Mos 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. But it's not confirmed as a planned production, even if it has been confirmed "in-story" as a future adventure. In other words, the Doctor has said this adventure will happen, but RTD hasn't yet. So a particularly literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies would probably count it as speculation, which is why I haven't added anything. Kelvingreen 21:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally think it's far more likely that this was just a throwaway cameo that won't be followed up on. David 08:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Unlikely. I'm told that RTD and the Who office keep a tight rein on references to other adventures and events, for whatever reason, but likely because they might want to use them later on. If they included such an obvious reference to an adventure featuring such a notable figure, I don't think it's likely that it'll be ignored. The source for this, such as it is, is comics creator Richard Starkings, who mentioned the story potential of a previous "throwaway" line (one about a drop of the Doctor's blood changing the world), to a friend involved in the production of the show, as a good story idea, only to be told it had already been filed away for potential future use. If they noted that, then I'm sure they made a note of a potential Doctor/Elizabeth I adventure. But again, since there's no confirmation from RTD that this will happen, it's speculation for the moment. Kelvingreen 11:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity: Queen Elizabeth I 

message: Is this the first new series episode that doesn't feature the sonic screwdriver? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have just missed it but I don't think he does use the sonic screwdriver here and I can't think of any other episodes where he doesn't use it. It might be worth checking out before adding but it seems likely, and worth noting in the article, if correct. Corbo 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonic screwdriver 

message: Notice that what the younger witch says to the Doctor when she looks into his mind when trying to find out his name; it's a near-perfect match for what Madame de Pompadour said when she looked into his mind. It's that suggestion that he doesn't know his own name, and that something horrible happened which made him forget it. Kelvingreen 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity/References to Other Stories 

message: re. Cosmogoblin's claim: "The original Globe Theatre was not 14-sided; it was in fact either round or octagonal. In contrast, the nearby Rose Theatre was probably 14-sided. This could be a subtle allusion to Rose Tyler; alternatively it could have been a mistake by the writer. There is still no definitive evidence."
The Wiki article on The Globe states (without citation) "The Globe is shown as a round building on a contemporary engraving of London. On this basis, some assume the building was circular, while others favour an octagonal shape. Archaeological evidence suggests the playhouse had twenty sides." Given the dispute, the Doctor's assertion that it had 14 sides may be given the benefit of the doubt? Vivamancer 23:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just so happens that last week I was in Washington, D.C. and saw an exhibit at the National Building Museum that was on the topic of the Globe Theatre.  According to what was presented at the exhibit, scholars are not in agreement as to how many sides the Globe actually had, as contemporary illustrations, archeological evidence, and written records are inconclusive and contradictory.  Whether an article says 14, 16, 18, or 20, is likely due to a particular author being certain of their own pet theory.IanThal 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Shape and Number of Sides of The Globe theatre 

message: I've removed the bit about Martha coming from AFTER Harry Potter #7 was published. According to Martha's Blog she met The Doctor on March 31 2007. This is an official BBC tie in, and represents official continuity.
Dammit, Wiki won't let me post links to blogs,  Harry Mudd 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that isn't televised, regardless of whether or not it is made by members of the BBC, is of debatable canonicity, this website included.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs) 
Anyway, the blog does not say that she met the Doctor on March 31st. No content "written by Martha" says this. The actual software's machinery has a date, but the software is obviously assuming (for some bizarre reason) that the blog is not set a couple of years into the future. It's just a technical issue rather than a continuital issue.--Rambutan (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See below, but if you stick with the TV show as your continuity guide, you can work out that Martha and The Doctor meet no earlier than 2008 (no, wait, 2007! oops). But all the Doctor's quip implies is that Martha hasn't read HP7 David 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to add to this, I've noticed a lot of pages referring to characters such as Professor Lazarus, and the Joneses, all being from 2008, but I still don't think we've had proof of this. What we've seen is still consistent with a date of 2007. David 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martha's Timeline 

message: I've removed this:
*The Doctor claims to have read the final Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with the implication that it has not yet been released. This indicates that Martha comes from the same time period in which the episode was originally broadcast. However, if Martha and The Doctor's meeting in Smith and Jones was set after the events of The Runaway Bride then that would set this episode in 2008 of the present day timeline, long after the release of the seventh Harry Potter book. Later on, Martha gives Shakespeare the word "Expelliarmus" to complete his witch banishing speech, implying that she is familiar with the Harry Potter books and/or films, although the word is a disarming spell (i.e. 'expel arms', such as a wand) rather than a banishment in Harry Potter.
It appears to be original research based on comparisons of timelines.
In removing the whole thing I may have removed material that could find a place elsewhere in the article, shorn of the speculation about timelines. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the material without the timeline speculation to the References to Other Works section, where "Expelliarmus!" was still mentioned. Vivamancer 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting speculation, but not necessarily so - since I don't recall Martha being incredibly surprised that the Doctor has read HP7 (she knows the Doctor's a time traveller, anyway) - nor do I  recall that she said that she *hadn't* read it yet, or that it hadn't yet been published in her time... This was really meant to be a cute reference to the audience, anyway PaulHammond 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: the removed passage, Martha's first meeting with the Doctor doesn't necessarily take place (historically) after Runaway Bride, but it does occur after Christmas Invasion (she mentions something having taken place at Christmas). Rose was in 2005, Aliens of London (and therefore Christmas Invasion) was 2006, so that still puts Smith and Jones firmly in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidhorman (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not firmly, but still possibly. And plus, was Rose certainly set in 2005? If it was set in 2004 then it would solve most of the timeline issues which state the episodes occured the years they were broadcast, not one year later. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter

message: I've changed this:
: The title has a similarity to the book and movie title The Da Vinci Code''''
to this:
: The title appears to be a reference to The Da Vinci Code''''
It's impossible to ignore the fact that nearly ever adult viewer of this episode reading the title will make the association with The Da Vinci Code, and this is almost certainly a deliberate reference.  We should stop short of stating that it is a reference, but it's not appropriate to weaken the description to the point of inanity. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Da Vinci Code

message: I find this hard to credit:
The architect of the Globe whom the Doctor visits in Bedlam is allusion to Tom o'Bedlam in King Lear. The reference to 'Bedlam' makes this clear, as does the fact that Peter Streete talks about himself in third person and calls himself 'Poor Peter' (all of which echo the character and lines from King Lear). 
Isn't "bedlam" a reference to the fact that the place was popularly called... "Bedlam"? None of the other details are convincing (is Redvers Fenn-Cooper also a reference to King Lear?). I will remove this if no-one objects.
:Yeah, the place was called Bedlam in popular culture of the time. See first entry on Bedlam mattbuck 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was queried & justified previously. See above. The Bedlam did exist before Shakespeare's time. Shakespeare did include a madman in King Lear, who called himself 'Tom o'Bedlam' (a disguise adopted by Gloucester). Tom o'Bedlam talks about himself in the 3rd person, e.g. "poor Tom's a-cold." This pattern of speech and appending the name 'Poor' to the Christian name (as Street does) is a clear allusion to King Lear. Especially as Shakespeare is shown looking thoughtfully at the madman. I note your comment on RFC, but this episode is about Shakespeare and RIDDLED with allusions to Shakespeare's life, the Chandos portrait, the titles and famous lines & characters from his plays, poems etc.Vivamancer 09:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Streete was a historical person: the master carpenter who moved the Globe theatre and rebuilt it. Hence his name can't be changed. However, the reference to Bedlam, which in the context of Shakespeare connects with Tom o'Bedlam. Streete's 3rd person self-reference and the 'Poor Peter' phrase all cement the allusion. This has been discussed & peer reviewed above. Vivamancer 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One person agreed with you, I'm not sure that counts as "peer-review". The name "Bedlam" cannot be changed either, but you seem to think it has been chosen deliberately to echo Lear. Is it not far more likely that both Roberts and Shakespeare were referring to the actual hospital? The third person self-references and the adjective poor are not unique to Lear either. A number of other false references have bitten the dust on this page lately. This should go too, imo. I will remove it unless anyone other than the originator objects. Tomsalinsky 23:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty tenuous to me as well. Where there's this much room for doubt (and no reliable sources saying what the writer had in mind), it's probably better to leave it out. If the character had said "Poor Peter's a-cold!" it might be a different story, but there's nothing that concrete here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mavarin (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone. Tomsalinsky 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bedlam

message: *Yes: it's a statement of fact.--Rambutan (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Consensus. We have votes on anything. I'm not prepared to continue this argument. Get someone on your side if you think you're right. Byeee.--Rambutan (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: should the statement about drowning, above, be included?

message: Is it breaking the fourth wall or not? Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 16:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  It's just a common expression.  That is, when something becomes verified in one way or another, some people like to say '[The proponents] just punched the air'. DonQuixote 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard it before myself. Ah, thanks for clearing it up >_> Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the modern Doctor Who scripts are deliberately written with a very porous fourth wall.  The statement here implicitly assumes unseen viewers (the audience of Doctor Who) and it isn't inconsistent with the house style.  See for instance the involvement in recent Who scripts of BBC commentators, television talk show hosts, game show formats, and so on, which are, if not breaking the fourth wall, at least implicitly "playing to the gallery" in a very theatrical manner. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. To break the forth wall, would be to directly address the audience, or acknowledge that it is a tv show. Rather the Dr. is making a statement that only him, Martha and the tv audience will understand. Even if he was just talking to himself or thinking out loud, this is not "breaking" the forth wall. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Sonnet 57|57]] academics just punched the air" 

message: "The minstrel singing below the balcony at the start of the episode is an allusion to the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet."
I've removed this as it seems just too attenuated. There is no singing in the Romeo and Juliet balcony scene, nor any kind of wooing similar to The Shakespeare Code. Juliet is soliloquising without even knowing that Romeo is there. The 'balcony scene' is a stock scenario of Renaissance and earlier romances, and not remotely particular to Romeo and Juliet. (In fact the whole scene is only set on a balcony through theatrical tradition harking back to those earlier romances, since Shakespeare does not specify that it is on a balcony). I think this is case of looking just too hard for references. Peeper 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this removal.  There is no reference to the balcony scene here, only a balcony. --Tony Sidaway 09:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Reference' to the balcony scene 

message: I've removed the following section from references. 
<< Although the ideas are similar, it is not a reference to the Chaos Theory butterfly effect, which is concerned with the potential of a trivial event (e.g. the beat of a butterfly's wings) to have massive, unpredictable consequences (e.g. a tropical storm). This idea is also explored, although in an entirely different light, in an episode of The Simpsons entitled Treehouse of Horror V. In one of the three stories, Homer invents a time  machine out of a toaster, travels to prehistoric times, steps on a bug, and returns to the present time where everything is altered in some way. >>
Don't bother saying that it ISN'T a reference to chaos theory. Don't bother saying what it isn't. Don't mention chaos theory at all. It's irrelevent. 
Commenting on the Simpson's episode would be valid commentry for an article on Ray Bradbury. It has no place in this article. This episode references a Ray ?BRadbury story, that should be mentioned. Other stories that reference Ray Bradbury are irrelevant. Harry Mudd 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a 'negative reference'. It's a clarification, distinguishing between the 'stepping on a butterfly' concept and the Chaos theory 'butterfly effect'. Many people (including contributors to this article) commonly confuse them for each other. I agree that the Simpsons example that was appended isn't relevant, though. Vivamancer 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the idea with the "stepping on a butterfly example" is that to do so would eradicate any potential "butterfly effect" that that particular butterfly could otherwise have caused. So the two seem distinctly related to me. David 08:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't comment on negative references 

message: I've amended the reference about the Doctor and Martha's comments on Shakespeare's appearance for these reasons, and invite more comment or further changes which take these into account:
1. Neither the Chandos portrait nor the Droeshout engraving includes a ruff.
2. Martha only refers to "his portrait". It seems entirely possible but pretty unlikely that she is familiar with the Chandos portrait in particular, but more probable to me that it is a general comment on Shakespeare's traditional appearance. (The latter also steers clear of any assumptions or OR).
3. WP does not currently have an article on the mystery of Shakespeare's appearance, which would be the ideal link for this reference. I have used Chandos portrait since it's the closest match and includes some relevant discussion, but I don't think this or Droeshout engraving (note the redlink) is ideal.
Any comments? Peeper 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed yesterday or the day before that the Chandros portrait article also discusses the Droeshout engraving a little bit, and the lack of a ruff in either likeness.  (I'm pretty sure my Riverside Shakespeare has a portrait with a ruff on it or in it somewhere.) That seems to be the best link for now, but the Doctor and Martha are unlikely to be overly concerned with one particular portrait. Is there no discussion of Shakespeare's appearance in his main article? In any case the need to cover this issue in depth (probably a good idea) is a bit beyond the scope of an article about a Doctor Who story. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Martha said portraits. Plural :) Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! I thought she might have done, but just wasn't sure. But that does indeed put the old tin lid on it, I feel. Ta. Peeper 09:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakespeare's appearance

message: anyone else think that the comment where martha comments on shakespeare's breath is a vague reference to the comment that shakespeare has on the dark lady's breath 'reek'ing as well -  a sort of get your own back?
"And in some perfumes is there more delight 
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks."
it's what i'll be saying to my english group anyhow (they've just done the sonnets and are dr who fans)Crescent 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, Sonnet 130 was used in a spoof recently. A rose by any other name would, of course, smell as sweet. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sonnet 130 - breath smelling 

message: Someone entered the BARB figures and said it was the fourteenth most popular broadcast of that week.  BARB's Weekly Viewing Summary has the programme as fifth in the terrestrial top thirty, after four episodes of Eastenders. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BARB figures

message: Is there a good reason people want to note superficial resemblances between Silver Nemesis and this episode? Some source out there to say that this is a deliberate link between the two in continuity terms? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't need to be a source for it to be a link. It is similar, and thus worth mentioning since it's all Doctor Who. Maybe if the similarity was to an episode of Fawlty Towers that would be different, but within DW it clearly is (off the record) a reference, and worth mentioning in the article even though we don't (on the record) have a source.--Rambutan (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trivia.  Arrows fired at a door which characters have just gone through is so common a meme in visual media that it's very tenuous to claim it's a deliberate reference to any single story, whether it be Doctor Who or not. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It kind of hit exactly the same panel in the TARDIS as last time, and also right at the end of the episode.... I can't see under what policy it's not allowed: it's not WP:NOR, since it's not an unpublished fact or argument (not an argument at all).--Rambutan (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:OR both apply here.  Reporting something which could simply be coincidence as a continuity note does put us into original research territory ("I think it's a reference, therefore it is.").  Without a source, it boils down to being trivia, which is the sort of thing we ought to prevent the continuity section from turning into. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it's a reference. I said it happened. And it did. And it's relevant. So OR doesn't apply. And I'm going out now.--Rambutan (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrows, again 

message: The article decribed Martha's question about stepping on a butterfly and changing the future as a reference to the butterly effect. I'm fairly certain it's actually a reference to the Ray Bradbury story "A Sound of Thunder", where someone travelling into the distant past actually does step on a butterfly and returns to find his own time completely different. 64.85.243.95 (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went ahead and made the edit, including relevant links and a mention of the Whoniverse's (is that a word?) apparent historical resilience. 64.85.243.95 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepping on a butterfly 

message: Although it is true that the African slave trade came later it is very unlikely you would see black people in London as the few who where there were banished by Elizabeth in 1593 6 years before the episode was set in 1599 so people Probably would be racist towards Martha ass she would technically not be allowed in the city  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.163.139 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably why Elizabeth hates the Doctor -- he forced her to push back that ban by six years to 1600...or something like that.  Hint: the history of our universe doesn't contain Time Lords. DonQuixote (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical race white wash 

message: I think someone has gone a little overboard with the references. I am almost surprised use of the TARDIS is not cited as a reference to other episodes where the TARDIS is used. The Doctor's relationship with Queen Elizabeth is not a reference to his relationship with Queen Victoria. The Doctor has a tendency to form an adversarial relationship with monarchs and national leaders. Similarly, his attitudes towards his companions mimicking native speech patterns remains constant. additionally these are repeated. in references in later episodes. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Shakespeare Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312164215/http://www.dwscifi.com/articles/show/227 to http://www.dwscifi.com/articles/show/227
*Added  tag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/doctorwho/ram/302_preview?size=16x9&bgc=CC0000&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified