Talk:From Out of the Rain

message: Edokter's right on this one: the "out" should be lowercase. Quote from WP:CAPS: 
"Out" falls under this categorization, and should be lowercase. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The capitalisation of "Out" in this title is deliberate and is a reference to an specific thing within the episode. I do not understand why a fan-invented, non-sourced title takes preference over an officially-sourced actual title. Aso I feel protecting any page where one's own edit are challenged to ensure no edits but your own are allowed is a massive abuse of admin powers. Starhunterfan (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said before, if the producers inteded the capitalisation, and/or the story itself reflects that intention, then it can be renamed. Until then, "Out" is just as unsourced as "out" and convention is followed.  — Edokter • Talk •  01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Then what is it? The cast list lists the main characters. Guest stars which were not already confirmed are added after the show has aired.  — Edokter • Talk •  01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The official BBC Torchwood site lists the episode title here...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/sites/episodes/series2/ep10_preview.shtml
... as having a capital 'O' and, to be honest, I'm surprised this discussion even needs to take place. Despite whatever conventions Wikipedia has it was fairly plain from the start that the 'O' would be capitalised. Episode/Song/Book titles do not follow standard English grammar. They are titles, not sentences. I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor but this is very obvious in other places (magazines, other websites). I don't understand why it isn't the same here. Passing Scottish Bloke  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.45.113 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has it's own converntion, just for this reason. Whatever methods other sources use, they are often caught using the wrong capitalisation. Unless the capital 'O' was a deliberate intention by the creators of the show, which has not been established, there is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia should deviate from their own conventions. The BBC made an honest mistake, and everyone else getting their information from the BBC, copied that error verbatim. Go ask the BBC or Russel T Davies if the capital 'O' was indeed intentional.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just a note, capitalisation rules are for titles...of books, songs and episodes. DonQuixote (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth opinion

message: Yeah, these are getting boring now, but.
There's been a myriad of sources, which people have provided, that indicate a capitalised Out. There hasn't been a single source provided that says it shouldn't. Wikipedia requires information that is sourced. I think the sourced information trumps the MOS on this one, and I don't really understand how anyone can argue to the contrary.
Also, I think Edokter's conduct here is reprehensible. You're involved in the movement dispute, and slapping a move protection on it in the form you prefer... well, apologies in advance if this looks like a breach of NPA, but that fucking stinks. If you believe you are in the right, you would be able to find uninvolved admins that support your position and petition them to lock it. Utilisation of admin powers to protect your preferred version is a flagrant breach of WP:ADMIN#Misuse of tools; I really don't want to throw this one to WP:ANI, but I really think you are out of order here. Kinitawowi (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection has long since expired. And I'm sorry to disagree, but the MOS does override the sourcing for this one, as no artistic intention has been asserted. Also have a look on Google; a search will show the title in all manners of capitalisation, right and wrong. I have already told the original poster to bring it to ANI if he so wishes, so if you think it warrants a post there, go right ahead.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, this could just be a common sense situation here. On the Google-search you link, I can't see anyone except WP who use the lower-case "O", and just generally, not only does an upper-case one look better, it's used by everyone including the BBC, who are actually a reliable source. So while I can see where you're coming from, Edokter - and so I don't complain about your admin actions, I see your point - I have to say, I'm with the capital-lobby :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sixth opinion 

message: I've only seen the preview trailer for this, but Gwen did not appear in it and so I assume the episode takes place during her honeymoon. If she does not appear, this is surely noteworthy. U-Mos (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <S>Uhm, it already aired on BBC3, and Gwen was defenitely in it.
 Oops, i was think of "Something Borrowed". Come to think of it... I can't recall seeing her either.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwen, Ianto and Owen went to the Electro together, so she's in it. DonQuixote (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode doesn't follow the "Gwen Williams is in her honeymoon" timeline. She appears like in any other episode. Even, Gwen participates in the final confrontation, which happened at the Electro, with both Owen & Toshiko. 2008ana (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gwen? 

message: The film shows him with the other members of the sinister cast.  He says he was with a different outfit, but he has to say something to explain it.  Should there be more of a reference?  --GwydionM (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far was Captain Jack involved 

message: The film shown in the Electro cinema is printed on 35mm stock - you see it clearly on the Steenbeck and when it's being loaded into the projector. However, back in the Hub the projector that Toshiko operates is obviously a 16mm model. Noticing elements (the Ghostmaker and Pearl) missing from the film, Ianto expresses doubt that it is the same film as he watched in the cinema. Jack assures him that it is but how can it be when it won't physically fit? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity error: 35mm film in a 16mm projector? 

message: As soon as I looked at the article, I clicked "move" as the title appeared wrong, before I noticed all the to-ing and fro-ing.  The article location should be "From Out of the Rain" - "Out of the Rain" is the place/concept/plane/dimension/whatever the evil traveling show people were from, hence the nonstandard capitalisation of "Out"; they didn't come out of the rain, or come out of "The Rain", they came from "Out of the Rain".  Hence, "From Out of the Rain".  "Out of the Rain" is the place where the things originally existed, and "from out of" isn't a preposition in this context - out is used as an adverb, and ought to be capitalised. Am I making sense? Neıl ☎ 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did read the entire discussion above, didn't you? Anyway, I'm not going to fight this anymore.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did indeed read the above discussion - you kept insisting "out" was being used as a part of a complex preposition (as in "from out of"), when in fact using a lowercase "out" would be (almost) like writing "I watched a scene from out of Africa". Neıl ☎ 00:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that analogy is wrong.  Out of Africa is a single entity -- a film, so using that example in this argument is dubious.  It's like saying we should capitalise "A" because of the example "I watched a scene from a Midsummer Night's Dream" -- although it's proper in "From A Midsummer Night's Dream" when it's referring to the play itself, it's improper in "From a Midsummer Night's Dream" when the subject is a dream dreamt one midsummer night.  It's better to use some other argument, like something that disambiguates "[from out of the rain]" as a single entity vs "out of the rain" as a single entity. DonQuixote (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I do believe that the people seen in the lido, disappearing when the flask is opened are in fact ghosts from the already hospitalised victims instead of other unknown victims. They would have been conjured by the Ghostmaker to serve as the Night Travellers' audience. Moreover it does not appear consistent that some victims should just die and stay where they are when other disappear into fine air. Does anybody thinks the same ? 86.201.204.251 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There seems to be no evidence to support that bit in the article in the episode, so I have removed it 143.238.218.245 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Frozen victims in the Lido

message: Is it just me or is the storyline rather close to that novel? Both have creatures coming from celluloid, capturing people to watch them eternally. The destruction in both cases involved the weaknesses of celluloid. - Is there a common source to both, or did TW copy the motif of the book?--Cyberman TM (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarity to [[Moving Pictures (novel)]], Discworld?