Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)/Archive 2

message: Given the frequent additions of plot speculation, the Captain's name, Astrid speculation, TARDIS speculation, iceberg speculation, past Doctors speculation, monsters speculation and, well, have I left anything out? Perhaps we should request semi-protection for a bit. --Karen | Talk | contribs 18:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing we can't handle (yet). It's only 1 or 2 edits a day. --Edokter (Talk) 18:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your proposal has nothing to do with this issue. Your proposal was to prevent anyone but registered users from updating the page on the day the episode aired, a very unwiki-like thing. This proposal is to deter the rampant speculation in the absence of actual news. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal was to prevent anyone but registered users from updating the page on the day the episode aired because of the high volume of rampant speculation, actually.--Rambutan (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Rambutan, to whom, exactly, are you replying?  Neither Karen nor Edokter left comments on User:Rambutan/Fan-cr!p.  Moreover, it's a decidedly incivil response. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. I didn't understand Rambutan's reply above until I read the comments that followed it. Nor am I suggesting anything long-term, let alone on Christmas Day if that's when it's airing.  But the past week or so there have been many attempts to add the various flavors of speculation I mentioned above, to the point where we're probably each doing a couple reverts per day, give or take. That probably won't be the case for long, as the off-Wiki speculation dies down and people start fixating on other things. If you all don't mind reverting the same things over and over, and if we can do so without 3RR issues, then that's fine.  I'm just asking the question: is this an appropriate time to semi-protect, when speculation is high and new revelations from the BBC are likely to be scarce on the ground for a bit? That's all it is, a question. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 09:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer your question, protection is usually a matter of volume. Right now, it's not too bad. You could make a request, but it wouldn't be up for very long, if at all. If there's 50 some-odd edits in a course of a day, or one persistent vandal, then protection would be more viable. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the consensus on this one is "no".  But thanks for offering. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey-doke!  No problem! --Karen | Talk | contribs 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to ad a thank you for the thought but that it isn't too bad. I don't know why some folks have to be repeatedly rude and sarcastic about things. Nice idea and politely put across, thanks. AlanD 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotect? 

message: Hi, I've been deleting all the "Porg" spoilers which were reported here, since the Sun is unreliable. If we are to mention it as a pre-broadcast rumour, it needs to be properly cited.--Rambutan (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update I'm now at 3RR, so I'd welcome any help!!--Rambutan (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Worry ye not, I'm on duty all evening (BST) and I'm sure I won't be the only one.  Besides, you've only made two reverts in the last 24 hours, so you've got one in hand if necessary. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm on call as well... At work with nothing to do. --Edokter (Talk) 18:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks - but I've done my three (, , )! Should we put it in "pre-broadcast publicity"?--Rambutan (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) Hmm. It's not exactly a big story as yet — only four articles on Google News in comparison with, for example, 164 on Kylie — and there isn't much meat to it (here's a little person in a red mask, smoking a fag, who may or may not be called "Porg" or "the Porg"). Perhaps it's worth waiting to see whether something more comes through? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was only published today. I've added it, but if you feel it is insignificant, feel free to remove it. --Edokter (Talk) 18:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it contains that photo, I assume that it's actually true, and thus worth listing. If it sounded incredible, then I'd say otherwise. I'll leave the article as Edokter left it (a first time for everything...).--Rambutan (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not exactly a hugely informative article but I quite like the current edit, good comprimise. AlanD 20:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red spiky Porg 

message: Right, what's the business with this edit? As far as I see, it's restoring a deleted comment - which was deleted due to its complete lack of connection and value with/to the article. It's not geared towards improving the article.--Rambutan (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the comments made in the section above, on my edit on the history of this Talkpage and on your Talkpage.  I am not going to repeat them when you only need to scroll up half a dozen lines. Kelpin 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:TALK]] violations 

message: So says the BBC GracieLizzie 21:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't argue with the BBC :) --Edokter (Talk) 22:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinner jacket wearing alien infliatrates the launch party 

message: :Russell T Davies revealed that this episode contains the words 'host', 'lifeboats', 'trapped' and the sentence, "they think we should be in steerage."
Is this information in any way relevant, apart from the fact that it has been published? I mean, this is something only bored fans would find significant. --Edokter (Talk) 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the sort of thing RTD would release when he has nothing significant to release, no its not important enough for this artical.--Wiggstar69 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also RTD can be mischievous with some of these revelations.  I remember the Doctor Who Online forum exploded with theories about the Axons in Series 3 when he said in an interview "I've just typed the word Axons" (used in the episode The Sound of Drums).  The Axons didn't appear in that episode, and were only mentioned in passing once.  Kelpin 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. --Edokter (Talk) 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words used in the episode 

message: The Sun claims a Shakespearian actor is going to appear to doctor who! we should wait until a suitable source publishes this information, don't add it just yet as The sun is not reliable!--Lerdthenerd 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a link?  — Edokter • Talk •  19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: more speculation from [[The Sun]]!

message: I heard Kylie was to play a cyberwoman. No truth in that I suppose? --81.178.67.184 15:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been mentioned (as far as I know) by any reliable sources.  It may or may not be true but wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we need to leave out speculation until a reliable source (the BBC, Russell T Davies etc) confirms it.  Kelpin 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When The News of the World broke the story of Kylie's casting, they made the assertion she'd be playing a Cyberwoman (presumably from speculation about use of dance costumes which bore resemblance to Cybermen suits in one of her live routines).  Later stories point towards Astrid not being a Cyberwaitress. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyberwoman Kylie 

message: Cribbins has been added to cast list but with DWM as a source, does DWM count as good source or should we revert again until we get a better source?--Lerdthenerd 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DWM is a good source - its officially sanctioned by the BBC and Russell T Davies writes a column for it.  Kelpin 13:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cribbins has been added to the cast list again but with a source.

message: I have reverted the removal of :Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg twice now. This image was uploaded specifically for this page and does not break WP:NFCC in any way. I can't see any reason for it's removal (and yet leaving it on Kylie Minogue). Discussion please.  — Edokter • Talk •  00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, then maybe you should look into whether the image should be used in the Kylie Minogue article? --212.32.112.152 01:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Edokter, and have restored the photo. It is more appropriate here, and no-one has provided a valid rationale for removing it. --Ckatzchatspy 05:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like a perfectly reasonable use of the image, as it directly pertains to the written material we have to date. --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. People have the certain mindset that if the episode has not aired, it doesn't pass NFCC#8, although it's not as clear cut as that. It's fine, seriously. Will (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Kylie and David image 

message: Just to let enyone know: I regard reverting edit made by socks ( and ) exempt from 3RR; don't risk being blocked for using socks.  — Edokter • Talk •  11:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Socks

message: Can I just ask why the page is protected?--Wiggstar69 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above section. Edit war. Will (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: here is the link for a possible pic for this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/homepages/images/advent07.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.185.131 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that at least two people really like the new publicity photo (in one form or another) and want to put it into this article. Thing is, we just went through problems keeping the previous one on here. It's not so easy, folks; there are fair use guidelines to be followed, along with Wikipedia formatting guidelines.  You can't just plop in a link to an off-Wiki image.  It doesn't show up. If people want to change the image, let's discuss it and do it right.  Don't just add it haphazardly, because it doesn't work that way.  Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavarin (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Edotker we don't want to lose the current image again. Mind you that image looks cool! I just want to ask who are those angel aliens in the background? They look very sinister!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: A few weeks back, there were well-substantiated rumours that we'd be seeing an old Doctor. Given that both the 9th and 4th have good reasons for appearing on the Titanic, it seemed plausible. However, shortly thereafter, we saw the 5th in Time Crash, and it's a pretty good bet that that's what the rumours were actually referring to....
So, is it worth tracking down these rumours and mentioning them in the pre-show publicity, or are they not relevant outside of the few days of their lifespan and therefore not encyclopaedic? --75.36.139.20 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really - Information will be deleted unless it has a source, and rumours don't fit that criteria. StuartDD contributions 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A former doctor? 

message: That's the slogan for a new promotional picture of the episode on the Doctor Who web site. It makes a big deal of December 1st. I'm not sure what date it was added on, which is a shame, as Wikipedians would want that to be mentioned if this particular form of pre-broadcast publicity were mentioned in the article at all. SHOULD it be mentioned? I know that saying anything about Axons would be a resounding no - I agree that that violates stuff. However, mentioning this publicity seems appropriate. I suggest adding it to the section on pre-broadcast publicity. I know all abut being bold, so really the reason I'm putting it here is in case anyone knows the date. I won't wait though - they can always add it later. If anyone really objects to it going up, fine, delete it, complain on the talk page blah blah. I'll just go do it now. I wonder what we have in store in two days' time ... probably some Advent calendar style thing with a new picture everyday. I shan't say that in the article though ... not until we actually know. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been there for about two days, but there's nothing really to report yet, so nothing to add here.  In a few days it will be 1 December, though, so there may be something worth mentioning at that point, once the BBC puts up more than an intriguing photo! --Karen | Talk | contribs 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edokter deleted it as speculative. That's definitely true of the Axons comment that someone insisted despite my warning. Whether Edokter also thinks my part was speculative I don't know - perhaps thinking   that Advent is stressed for emphasis with a different colour is thinking what you don't know. Nah, that's taking OR too far. As for it not being newsworthy ... well, we'll wait until tomorrow, because then I'll be fine. Well, actually, my internet access might not be that good tomorrow, plus I won't be at this IP anyway. Someone's bound to add it though. BTW, it seems it went up on the 27th.  129.67.53.232 (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC releasing a picture is certainly not newsworthy. And what will probably happen on Dec 1st is an online advent calander (they had one last year as well).  — Edokter • Talk •  12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they? Fair enough. It's anonymous old me again. I still think that there is *one* reason it's newsworthy: it reveals that the Porg is not the only "significant" life-form the Doctor is encountering in the episode. Of course, they might be as straightforward as some humans who love to dress up, but plotwise they won't be a red herring either. Still though, no doubt whatever there is to it will be reiterated with some actual words in due course anyway. 85.92.173.186 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepare for Adventure 

message: Some Christmas TV guides are giving an unconfirmed timeslot of 75 minutes for the special, and Kylie's said on the radio about the cut being too long but the BBC not reducing the length, apparently. Can somebody pick an Xmas TV guide up or see if the interview is still up on the BBC website and confirm these?It takes ages to find a free username 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There won't be confirmed schedules for Christmas Day out until about the 4th or 5th of December.I'm sure someone will check it at that point  .Garda40 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To check out the Kylie interview we need to know what programme it was .Garda40 20:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It was put into the article yesterday.Garda40 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I know. That was me from my computer at work!! I just don't know how to do those little numbers like this... [1] to link to a "reference" at the bottom! Blaine Coughlan (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  75 minutes? 

message: Do we need all the cast notes?  It is a bit too long just now.  Which ones can we get rid of? StuartDD contributions 12:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cutting down the cast notes 

message: An editor has added Nicholas Witchell to the cast list, using IMDB as the source.  Would this be the same IMDB that has been, in the past, responsible for such scoops as Norman Lovett appearing as Davros in the finale of Christopher Eccleston's season?  The same IMDB that credited Kevin Eldon for the role of "Bad Wolf" in the episode "Bad Wolf"?  The same IMDB that had Captain Jack Harkness appearing in season 2?  62.164.250.156 (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out.--Wiggs (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But stranger things have happened. I mean, the Titantic is lumped on a spaceship flying through space on the trailer, so anything could be going on... But I take your point on IMDB not always being reliable. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Christmas Radio Times is out! Nicholas Witchell is in it! Yeah! Wolf of Fenric (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An additional source is the photo gallery behind the 10 on the advent(ure) calendar. --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicholas Witchell & IMDB 

message: where does the synopsis come from - I checked the source and it doesn't cover it. StuartDD contributions 16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fancruft. I've restored it. (Had to dig deep in the history.)  — Edokter • Talk •  16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the publisity advert the titanic is a floating spaceship with modern techonology suggetsing its not the origional titanic.--Wiggs (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say it is the original Titanic, just "the Titanic".  — Edokter • Talk •  23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the Earth Heritage Society (or whatever it was from The End of the World) have restored the original Titanic for space-flight. So it still could be the Titanic. Stephenb (Talk) 11:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "In 1912, an alien menace infiltrates the launch party for the famous ship." The ship is floating in space, I really don't think its the 'origional' ship, the report that sources this statement was written months ago on a tangent issue and the writer could have simply thaught it would have been the actual titanic.--Wiggs (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the article in the latest DWM, and it specifically states it is not THE titanic. StuartDD contributions 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following that revelation, I've removed the bit from the "Titanic and Doctor Who" section saying it marks the ship's first proper appearance in the series. Daibhid C (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, could we maybe lose the whole section about the titanic? StuartDD contributions 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave it for now until it airs.  For all we know, it could be the Titanic restored and modified into a spaceship...or not.  We won't know for certain until it airs. DonQuixote (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nathan tyson has added the synopsis again should i revert?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  synopsis 

message: It's hardly worth mentioning all of his Who-credits. He's their little person. Done. Might as well mention that David Tennant's played the Doctor in <insert list of 10th Doctor episodes here>, right? --Johan (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there aren't very many actors who regularly appear but as different characters. That's the interesting bit :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast notes / Jimmy Vee 

message: Porcupine has just reverted someone for changing the picture so can everyone discuss the change of picture first before we end up with another edit war.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support any good-quality picture with a proper fair-use rationale. Seriously, is that so hard to do? Will (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be others wanting to change to yet another, "better" image. So far, we had the angel picture, yet another David & Kylie picture, and now the flying Titanic. We can't have them all... using one will orphan the others and be deleted, so best is to stick with one. So yeah, in that respect, it is hard to do.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the images uploaded for this page except for the recent publicity shot had no rationales at all. Will (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current picture is fine - there is no need to change it just now. StuartDD contributions 11:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree don't change it now but i still think the angel picture was cool!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: changing of the picture