Talk:Fear Her

message: Has this title been confirmed anywhere?  If it hasn't, we probably shouldn't have the page yet, especially since we don't know anything about it.  (If we had loads of info and no title, we could use "Deep Realms" as a placeholder, but I'm reluctant to have a page for a hypothetical title of an episode with no information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title needs firmer confirmation than just the site admin; at least The Age of Steel has been announced in DWM. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where has The Age of Steel been announced? The new DWM isn't out until next week and the last one certainly doesn't have it. Angmering 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, seems I'm all out of kilter. Evidently it's out this week and subscriber copies have landed. Angmering 23:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify: "The Age of Steel" is confirmed in DWM, but "Deep Realms" has only been confirmed on the drwho-online.co.uk forums.  So what should we do about this page? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we can leave it for the moment but make the necessary caveats in the article (as I've done), although I fear this will encourage speculative titles in future. Another option is to move it to "Doctor Who Series 2, Episode 11", but that's an awkward title. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've found the source at the YaWho group: Nathan Baron says, "A BBC source has informed us that the titles for episodes 8 and 11 will be Planet 14 and The Eyes That Saw Forever, respectivly"[sic].  Anyone know this source, and whether he's reliable?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  No sooner had I joined the YaWho group than I received this email from the same Nathan Baron: "According to a source close to the BBC, the titles for episodes 8 and 11 will be Planet 14 and The Eyes That Saw Forever, are in fact fakes. Since we are unsure if they are fake or not, we will remove them for now from out front page. "  That settles that (even despite the peculiar grammar). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe someone is thinking about "She", the book by Rider Haggard?  PaulHammond 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd have called the episode 'Tantrum'. HalfShadow 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title confirmed?

message: I'm sure I've heard the phrase used in Doctor Who episodes before. Is it another 'Bad Wolf' type reference or am I just going slightly nutty? Darksun 13:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone is thinking about "She", the book by Rider Haggard?  PaulHammond 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'd have called the episode 'Tantrum'. HalfShadow 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fear Her sounds Familar

message: So. This is the first 'near future' one (as opposed to 'one year from now').  I spot:
*2012 Summer Olympics (well duh)
*Dame Kelly Holmes Close (noticed before)
*East London Council is in the TARDISODE
**this is quite a sensible thing to do to indicate 'near future' - there has been talk of merging of London borough councils from Ken Livingstone at least
*an East London Constabulary is in the trailer
**this is curious: what happened to the Metropolitan Police?
*car with reg plate UY61LJW (this as noted in article is set in 2011)
the bbc news 24 captions say
*COUNTDOWN TO THE GAMES
**...LONDON ... PRIME MINISTER TO ARRIVE SE
**GUARDED SECRET BUT OFFICIALS HAVE REVEA
Morwen - Talk 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the Home Office and Met Police, which have faced many "hits" by the media and politicians this year, have had a radical shake-up by then. David 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The cars all seem to be today's models and many in the background still had 05 and 55 plates consistent with the time of filming. I think they only bothered disguising the ones that stayed in shot for long periods, such as the 61 plate on the drive where the boys were playing football and the 09 plate on the mini that conked out. There were in fact very few cars on the drives at all, which may mean most people were meant to be at work in the day scenes and that they all use their garages in the night scenes.--82.14.68.109 07:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the cars were chosen to look very modern though; note the Smart Forfour and Peugeot 407, both of which have futuristic body styling. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 11:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everything that is supposed to look futuristic actually stays that way for very long, I mean De Lorean DMC-12--152.163.100.202 13:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Futury things

message: Another London during a "National Event", people vanish into media, family member sequestered upstairs, story.  Rich Farmbrough 21:50 24  June 2006 (GMT).
:Yeah, it did remind me of The Idiot's Lantern. The Olympic spirit arguably got shoehorned in to the emotional plot, whereas the Queen's Coronation was critical to the baddie's plan. TransUtopian 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat

message: One of the notes says that this phrase is a reference to a CiTV show, but is it really? I mean, I personally have heard this saying in  many, many uses before now, I just assumed it was a normal everyday phrase? The_B 23:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. --217.42.79.40 00:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although "edible ball bearings" is somewhat wierd. --Nantonos 01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too. It's also been the nickname of a darts player for several years. Recommend we delete it. Essexmutant 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's another version of "Fantastic!" (hmm).  The show was clearly named after a common and current phrase, rather than the other way round.  Why are edible ball bearings wierd?  I liked them when I was a kid!  PaulHammond 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Banana 

message: Is it me, or does the theme tune to this episode sound slighty different?
Daniel (talk)
I saw someone else say they changed the theme tune in The Age of Steel, but I've listened to the theme tune before and after that in quick succession and haven't heard a change. Except, after the episode title appears, there's been a few seconds of the vortex snaking aound and a wooshing sound effect (which I'm fond of) starting in The Idiot's Lantern, except for The Satan Pit, where they smash cut into the opening. Is that what you mean? TransUtopian 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Theme Tune 

message: Re: the statement regarding the BBC announcer mentioning Torchwood, what did (Huw?) say?  I must have missed that, but it does seem a peculiar thing for him to say...  --Harris 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the statement, since it's very hard to hear. When the reporter is talking about the disappearing spectators, he says something that could be "Torchwood". However, Chloe is talking over him at the time, so it's impossible to tell for sure. We'll need independent verification on this one in order to include it in the article. -- MisterHand 16:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can clearly hear him. Chloe says, "We won't be alone, Chloe Webber. We'll have all of them. And they will never feel alone, ever again." Then the announcer says Torchwood as part of a statement which is otherwise obscured. TransUtopian 17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the announcer is actually saying "...torch would..." in reference to the Olympic torch. (Very clever!) Blaine Coughlan (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchwood 

message: "A storm is approaching..." (last words) and "The oncoming storm?" (Dalek name for the Dr.) implies two things to me: the "you are not alone" message for the Doctor, and (more blatantly) the Daleks in the finale... 82.32.100.218 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or just that "storm" means something foreboding.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and two metaphors have no links other than etymological.  DonQuixote 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm 

message: There's been some pretty unbelievable plot-lines in Dr Who in the past, but...BBC News keeping the same ident for the next 6 years??? Come on, who'd ever fall for that one!--Tivedshambo (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And had they made up a new ident, fanboys in 2012 would be pointing out it's not right. Short of actually designing the BBC's 2012 ident now, it's lose/lose... —Whouk (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess the Doctor won't actually light the Olympic flame either ;) Tim! 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would conject that Doctor Who is set in a parallel universe from ours. Vitriol 00:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; otherwise I'm sure the Auton attacks in London would've made the news. And we'd have a new PM by now. :-) --DudeGalea 06:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC News ident

message: What was it he was eating? I think it might have been marmalade, considering the yellowy-orange label. It was probably some sort of jam, at any rate. Did it ever show it on the Doctor's fingers? Vitriol 00:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctor tasting from the jar 

message: In the trivia section: Details of the torch run at the opening ceremony were not consistent with the ceremony used in 2004. The Doctor takes the torch its entire way through the stadium and lights the cauldron; in 2004 it was handed over several times and finally lit by a particularly notable person. - is this really relevant to the show?  The show is depicting the 2012 event, not 2004.  Unless there is something I have missed.. -- Chuq 07:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible, but unless someone involved in the production goes on the record to say it's the case, it shouldn't be added to the article as fact. —Whouk (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia - ref to 2004 Olympics 

message: From the plot in the article, "The pod homes in on the torch, landing in the flame. [...] Trish, Chloe, Rose and Kel watch the torch-bearer stagger and fall, but another hand picks up the torch — the Doctor."
Why did the torch-bearer fall? The BBC sports announcer says, "We did see a flash of light earlier that seemed to strike him. Maybe he's injured", but I only saw him stumble and the torch flare brighter. I didn't see the fire strike him, or the torch-bearer looke like he was distressed until he fell down 2 minutes later.
I hope this question is okay here, because it's something I'd like to make clearer in the article, unless I'm misunderstanding something. TransUtopian 17:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was ever made clear in the episode why the runner fell down, he just did, I suppose more for dramatic effect more than anything. The_B 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did the torch-bearer fall down? 

message: Why is this trivia note part of this article: "Edna Doré, who plays Maeve, is best known for playing Mo Butcher in the soap opera EastEnders from 1988 to 1992." While this is certainly true, it has nothing to do with Doctor Who or this episode. Readers who want to know more about Doré can follow her link and read her article. We should not be providing a full biography of every guest star on the show within the episode articles. -- MisterHand 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a Doctor Who special, Dimensions_in_Time. It was a crossover between Doctor Who and EastEnders. That's the only connection I can think of. Crockalley 12:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not fussed whether the note about Dore is in or not; but the additional DiT connection is a bit too trivial, especially since Dore wasn't even in DiT. I do note, however, that we do include in some other articles notable guest stars, with a link to see Celebrity appearances in Doctor Who. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, sorry about that. So, just add the Celebrity appearances in Doctor Who link then? Otherwise, it doesn't seem relevant. Crockalley 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, seems a bit pointless having it in the notes here. Angmering 17:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally, I am very anti the removal of notes as a whole - (I've seen many of my relevant points vanish) - but this point does seem unnecessary. It's not relevant to the episode or to Doctor Who. If this point is allowed - why not list what all the rest of the cast are best known for? The only reason Nina Sosanya gets mentioned for previous roles in the Notes section is because those were alongside Doctor Who actors in this episode. Doré's hardly an A-List star and one can find out about her previous roles by clicking her name in the Cast section or by looking her up on imdb. I just don't think it is notable. I say just remove it. Finallycreatedaccount 02:14, 30 June 2006
I initially agreed with the "What's the point of having her appearance mentioned in the article at all?" group. But then I read khaosworks' point and I remembered seeing episodic Dr Who articles over several months with guest stars well known in Britain for being in other programmes (even though I don't know 99% of them — the 1% being John Cleese in City of Death). I'll probably recognize more as I watch more BritTV.
Sometimes the actor is linked plus Celebrity appearances in Doctor Who, sometimes the other famous program is named, sometimes more detail is given about the actor's appearance in Dr Who.
I don't see a problem with it, it currently has precedent with that listing article interlinked with many episodic Notes, and sometimes it might be referenced in a newspaper article, magazine interview, or behind the scenes commentary. TransUtopian 03:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd strip out all Celebrity appearances from Notes for this and other serials: it's an entirely subjective observation and the separate listing page is the best repository. :Litefoot 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heres a giggle for you....Eastenders is the most successful doctor who spin off to date....actors cross over all over the place, the cancelled 1985 season payed for eastenders creation (as the top secret E17 project) and Dimensions in Time predicted correctly several notable eastenders plot developments including sharons return, martins running of the fruit and veg stall etc etc....and now this week, we have two more eastenders actors (a former watts and a Perrari no less) as well as peggy mitchell and dens ghost.......oh, and of course the doctor pointing out the cataclysmic events that follow the statement this'll be the best christmas walfords ever had ...the question is, does that make the mitchell brothers canon? 22:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edna Doré trivia 

message: Is it just me or does the final line "something's coming ... a storm" sound like the "The Oncoming Storm"  from The Parting of the Ways? Me lkjhgfdsa 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darlek reference 

message: User:Fmon and I both added in a link to Olympic films as a see also. Khaosworks removed it both times. Now, seeing as the episode is listed there (as of here), I think it's a fair link. Should it be here? It can't hurt the article, surely? --Thelb4 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic films 

message: Maybe I'm missing something but why is the Isolus information here instead of in List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens? I know they're not really evil, but then neither are Forest of Cheem (and others) and they are on the list too. --GracieLizzie 18:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the list is getting way too cluttered. The Isolus is here as part of an effort to redirect minor, less notable aliens into the episode/story articles associated with them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. But out of curiosity what makes the Forest of Cheem more notable than the Isolus? I'd say they are about the same level of notability. --GracieLizzie 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not bothered either way; but the prominence given to the Forest of Cheem in publicity material at the time and in the Monsters and Aliens book might go some way to providing some justification. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel i wouldn't want to see 'all' minor charicters on their episode page so i wouldn't want to see this one.Wiggstar69 12:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the Isolus here? 

message: I think the length of the plot summary in this article is entirely too long. See WP:PLOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and particularly Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Plot_summaries. The rough guide from the latter states no more than ten words per minute of screen time. The length of this episode is 45 minutes. That's 450 words. Pumping just the plot summary through a word count, I come up with 1661 words, or roughly 4 times the maximum allowable by the rough guide. Also, the plot summary by itself constitutes 40% of the content of this article. This is excessive. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people just get carried away with these things.  We just need to get the pruning sheers out -- *snip*. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of plot summary 

message: I've raised a question at Talk:2012 Summer Olympics#I can't believe no-one's asked this yet but... asking whether this episode was involved in London's bid for hosting the Olympics. I'd be much obliged if anyone could head on over there and let me know! --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 Olympics 

message: Could one of you Brits please enlighten this Yank about just what is being described by terms like "Powell Estates" and "Dame Kelly Holmes Close"? It's clear they're locations, silly, but what level of specificity? They're in London, that's clear as well; but how large an area is being described?
For example, in the U.S., currently and typically, you have a city (San Francisco, New York, Boston), semi-formally divided into "neighborhoods" or "districts" -- these usually having somewhat fuzzily-defined borders -- such as "Richmond" in San Francisco or "Murray Hill" in NYC. It is not unusual for neighborhoods to share the name of the Post Office that serves it, e.g., "Elmwood Station" or "Murray Hill Station". Then, mostly since WWII, most residential developments were, well, development projects, and retained those names. For example, what I was younger we lived in a municipally-managed apartment complex (not unlike where the Tylers live, in fact) called "Bayview", in the "Canarsie" district in NYC; later on, I had a friend that lived in the "Bayswater" area of "Far Rockaway" in NYC. Similarly, in the Back to the Future movies, the McFlys lived in "Lyon Estates" in Hill Valley (which was too small to have districts). 
On the other hand, "Dame Kelly Holmes Close" almost sounds more like a street name than a neighborhood (yes, I know it's fictional); is "close" the term for a cul-de-sac (we typically use "Court", as in "Lea Court" for a cul-de-sac)? But on yet another hand, "Chiswick", which, if I'm correct, is a district of London, would seem to be more analogous to neighborhoods/districts. But what about "Estates"? It's described as a "Council Estate", what does that mean? I note that Kel was freaking out about Rose using the "Council ax" and tearing up the "Council street"; my immediate inference was that "Council" referred to a local governing body, probably sub-municipal, that had responsibility for (e.g.) street maintenance.
So, uh, yeah, whatcha got?Jeff (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhood names in the UK 

message: Does anyone have info about when this episode was shown elsewhere? My feeble note about BBCAmerica reruns is, well, feeble.Jeff (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-UK telecasts? 

message: A Wikipedia search for Deep Realms redirects to this page, I'm presuming because it was a potential/working title. However the article itself makes no reference to Deep Realms or other wip titles. Should these details be added or alternatively the redirection removed? --StridentUK (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Realms Redirection 

message: "An overcommissioned episode which was brought in to be a low-budget replacement for a script by Stephen Fry" 
Is this an attempt to invent a word by placing it in Wikipedia? "Overcommissioned" does not appear in dictionary.com, TheFreeDictionary, or even UrbanDictionary. Google tries to redirect to "recomissioned" and if forced to use "overcommissioned", results 1, 3 and 5 come back to this Wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.216.147 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same question and did a little looking around. It appears to be a British term. It seems to mean that they ordered more episodes than they planned on airing. This was one that they didn't plan on airing until they needed a lighter, lower-budget episode. Votenanocratic (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is overcommissioned a word? 

message: I've just been watching this episode, and in the part in the TARDIS, just before Chloe draws the doctor, causing him to disappear, he tells Rose that he 'was a dad once', and she seems surprised. I think this is the first mention of the Doctor having relatives in the revived series, so should it be mentioned? At least some mention of the Doctor having family should be put in the Continuity section for this article. Hol-Tangings (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to find a secondary source. It's a bit iffy because it's not a direct reference. Glimmer721 talk 15:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity? 

message: There was a reference in the article to the Millennium Stadium being used as the stand-in for the Olympic Stadium, however the shots of the opening ceremony (as shown in the episode) are clearly of the City of Manchester Stadium (now the Etihad Stadium) staging either the opening or closing ceremony of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The picture of the Millennium Stadium should probably be removed.  Bortron86 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic Stadium substitute