Talk:The Sound of Drums

message: The rhythm of the drums themselves, as performed by various characters through the episode (a homeless man, Margaret Jones, The Master) is the beat of the series' theme song.  That's certainly not an accident.  Worth a mention? Mael-Num (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your reliable source to make absolutely sure that it's certainly not an accident? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary, as it's common knowledge.  Common enough, in fact, that another astute editor already placed it in the article.  I simply overlooked it.  Mael-Num (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is necessary; as it is, a reliable source was found. Had there not been one, I would have had to remove the information. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and clearly the cited "reliable source" used the same method that I, and likely the original author of that portion of the article, did to determine that fact: we listened and recalled the theme song.  It's...troubling that you would require someone to jump through hoops to find a citation for something as obvious as that.  Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between "original research" and "clearly perceivable". This is a case of the latter. TreasuryTag, I wonder if you would question a description of Tom Baker's Doctor as "curly-haired" in absence of a "reliable source?" --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would have told me just yesterday that a reference to the Most Holy of Doctors would cause a partisan Doctor Who fan to see the light and concede an argument, I would have laughed.  Actually, it's still pretty funny today. Mael-Num (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Russell T. Davis has actually denied that there was any intention to have the sound of drums echo the theme tune - it *is* an accident. It was inspired by the sound of his alarm clock, according to an interview in DWM.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.148.152 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone else hear that? 

message: The term "President-elect" carries with it a clear definition involving a specific timeframe, which should be included in the article. 
Yes. Arguments in support of this position:
*"President-elect," in the context of U.S. government, is a temporary title attributed only to a person who has won the U.S. Presidential election but has not been inaugurated. The Presidential election takes place every 4 years. The two events that "bookmark" the existence of this title are both time-fixed: elections always take place on the first Tuesday in November, and Inauguration Day takes place on January 20 of the following year. The Winters character in this episode states that he is the "President-Elect" and so this places the events of that moment within this time frame. Further resources place the year of the story as 2008, and continuity dictates that the events precede those of Voyage of the Damned, which is set on Christmas Day. Thus, through simple logic, it can be determined that the episode takes place between 4 November 2008 and 24 December 2008. This is not original research, but rather logic (see notes below on Wikipedia policies at play). --Shubopshadangalang (talk)
*"I agree completely, but..." (quoted from Phoenix-Wiki, and added to position #3 concerning policy)
No. Arguments in opposition of this position:
* Other terms and practices are used which contradict the use of the term "President elect".  The term can also imply that a President has been democratically elected, rather then gaining power through family or war.  Note that the term is used when addressing an alien race. The359 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Position #1: Timeframe evident from definition. 

message: The character is incorrect when referring to himself as "President-elect" and therefore this is not valid. 
Yes. Arguments in support of this position:
* Not incorrect, but people's belief that "President elect" has only one meaning is incorrect.  It could simply mean "an elected President". The359 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's not true. In what context would it mean that? These resources define it exactly as stated, as falling between two clearly-defined, time-specific events: election (1st Tues in Nov) & inauguration/induction (Jan 20): , , , . —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: A US president would never refer to himself as "President Elect" after being sworn in.  That term may have other meaning elsewhere, but in the US it would mean "Someone else is still president and I have no political power yet."  He could have said "Elected president" to convey the intended meaning.  If he was actually president elect, he would never be in that position, the actual president would be. Algr (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a tendency in many articles concerned with works of fiction to assume that the fictional world makes sense. In reality, a work of fiction may contain clues designed to impart information to the reader without spelling everything out, but it may equally well contain a series of errors, inconsistencies, sloppy plotting or mistakes caused by a lack of research by the writer. Serial television is prone to all these things, even serials that are wonderfully entertaining. We can't do any more than guess whether the use of the phrase "President Elect" tells us something about the date in which the story is set or was simply a mistake. Plenty of things in even the best fiction don't quite make sense when you analyse them closely, and although trying to fit the pieces together can be a lot of fun on fan blogs and message boards, it's probably a bad idea to try to do it here. Hobson (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Position #2: Winters doesn't know who he is

message: The title of "President-elect" might have a different meaning within the Doctor Who universe than it does in the real world, so this information should not be included unless a veriable source from within the program itself can be presented that defines the term. (Wikipedia policy?)
Yes. Arguments in support of this position:
*...but I do not think it should be included in this article because there are no references that refer to this in the Doctor who universe, so it can't be included.--Phoenix-wiki 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Position #3: Nothing is the same as in the real-world unless sourced (application of WP policy)

message: It is not important to place the story in a timeline context, so it's irrelevant. 
Yes. Arguments in support of this position:
*It is irrelevant as long as the date cannot be established in a verifiable way. No clear references have been given in this episode, so there is no need or reason to include the exact timeframe. It has been standard practice for a long time to only include a timeframe only when verifiable references are available.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Position #4: Info not relevant

message: * How do we reconcile references to real-world persons, places, things, and concepts when referred to from within a fictional universe which, except where noted otherwise, appears to be like our world? Do we assume that ideas mentioned without explanation are defined the same as they are in the real world? If not, should we require a verifiable source from within that fictional universe that defines the term in order to include it in article?
:::Examples:
:::*Milk: If a character states "i drank a glass of milk," are we to assume that "drank" and "milk" are defined the same way as we define them in the real world, or should we wonder if perhaps it is toxic to humans, and fear for the character's life? Should we question whether "drank" might mean something more like "stepped on"? Should we require a source that fully defines these terms?
:::*Mirrors: If a character speaks of "looking into a mirror" should we assume that a mirror is the same object, and has the same reflective qualities in the fictional universe as it does in the real world? Or should we avoid any references to reflections, or of whether the character saw themselves in it, because we don't know?Should we require a source that fully defines a mirror as different to those of our own world?
:::*New Year's Day: If fictional events were established in a story as taking place in December 1974, and in the course of events a party took place with people screaming "Happy New Year" at the stroke of midnight, with one character saying "Hey, now it's officially "New Year's Day," followed by another set of events. Should we question whether the definition of "New Year's Day" is different somehow, and wonder if perhaps, in the fictional universe, it falls on February 1, or in the month of Troon, instead of being January 1? Should we require a source that fully defines the date of the holiday in this fictional world?
* Does "Original Research" as defined in Wikipedia policy include information garnered from logic from within the information presented, without the need for gathering additional sources or arguments?
:::Examples:
:::*Milk: Following the above example, is it "original research" to state in an article that the character's milk consumption involved his/her mouth? Or is this simply logic?
:::*Mirrors: Following the above example, is it "original research" to mention a "reflection"? Or is this simply logic?
:::*New Year's Day: Following the above example, would it be "original research" to state that the second set of events took place in January 1975? Or is it simply logic?
::::--Shubopshadangalang (talk)
* Extrapolating details from dialogue when terms are clearly-defined, common within fiction
::*It is a common fictional device to present story details in such a manner without explicitly stating them. For example, in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," early on, it is established that the character is divorced through his statement "and I'm paying alimony." Unless the character is lying or mistaken, it can be drawn through course of logic that he has been previously married, and is paying alimony to his ex-wife through a divorce settlement. Why? Because that's what "alimony" means by definition. Likewise, it is not "original research" to simply extract the meaning of a word to include details that are tied to that definition. In contrast, it would be "original research" to extract from this detail alone that his ex-wife married him only for his money - that is not evident in this information. I'm not sure this is the best example, but I think the difference here is crystal clear, and hopefully I've explained my perspective enough so others see what I'm getting at. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policies & philosophies at play

message: *Some discussion has happened on IRC. I haven't ignored the discussion, I've more just not been commenting, I've been keeping an eye over it. The consensus, while not a vote, seems clear to not include the information, as it can't be verified by a reliable source. Now, as a fictional writer myself, I would normally argue that plot information can be verified by using primary sources, such as , but from what I see, there's an attempt to blend real world information sources for fictional information, where the real source appears to not be 100% relevant, and given that there are discrepancies, such as the difference in time zones in Dr Who (?), I'm not familiar with the series, but that needs to be taken into account. So, from what I can judge from the discussions, the consensus is to not include the information, CCC, however, but at this time, it appears clear.  Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts 

message: This article mentions that the 'Cruciform' is a ship that is later seen at the end of series 4. However during those series 4 episodes (and in the related articles) the Ship was referred to as the 'Crucible.' Did I miss some conection between these 2 C's, or is this information wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is probably wrong.  Coincidentally, I made the same mistake when I first saw those episodes till I came here to read this article.  Darn, those things sound alike. DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point at which "Dalek Emperor took control of the Cruciform" was apparently a turning point in the battle, so much so that it cause the Master to lose all hope and flee. It would be speculation to include this in the article, but to me, this clearly tells us that "The Cruciform" is something valuable or powerful either on Gallifrey or of Time Lord origin, and the Daleks' control of it either caused a severe balance of power in the war, or signaled an end point to the war in which "the Cruciform" was the last front. The Crucible as seen in the series 4 finale is clearly a Dalek ship, and doesn't seem to be cross-shaped, but actually resembles a "crucible" with its energy core, which is powerful enough to destroy the Tardis once its inside. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 02:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruciform vs Crucible 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Sound of Drums. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702202744/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/312.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/312.shtml
*Added  tag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/doctorwho/ram/usnews?size=16x9&bgc=CC0000&nbram=1&bbram=1&lang=en-wl
*Added  tag to http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/doctorwho/ram/312_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