Talk:Demons of the Punjab

"While visiting family ... /Returning to the present ..."

Are you sure about that? My impression was that both of these were flashback scenes from some time prior to Yasmin meeting the Doctor. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Your personal view is noted; however, the episode acts as a primary source per WP:PRIMARY and we can only list what happens, not what we think happens. -- Alex^TW 12:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

True, but the episode does not necessarily support what was written in this article. Assuming that these two scenes took place on a visit back to the present day is just as much an example of "what we think happens" as the idea that these were flashback scenes or indeed any other possible interpretation. Neither are absolutely "what happens". Perhaps a more neutral wording is the solution? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

All the article states is "While visiting her family, Yasmin receives a broken watch from her grandmother Umbreen Khan.". She was visiting her family, she did receive a broken watch. That's what directly happened. When? We don't know. We are not making and cannot make WP:SYNTHESIS on when it actually occurred; the article does not say it occurred in "the present day". -- Alex^TW 12:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, the words "visiting" and "Returning" and "Having learned much ..." are all Original Synthesis too. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed "visiting" to "celebrating her grandmother's birthday" because that's more neutral. "Having learned much" is interpretation so it's been removed. However, "returning" is adequate since there's nothing in the narrative to indicate that the sequence of events aren't linear. DonQuixote (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, just remembered the henna tattoo. It definitely was a "returning". DonQuixote (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

What about something like "Back in the present, Yasmin's grandmother offers to tell her granddaughter the story behind the watch, but Yasmin declines, saying they can talk about it another time." This is Paul (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Punjabi inspired arrangement of theme (end credits)

Before another editor changes or challenges my reverts of Alex and GUTT, and so I am not accused of edit warring, I thought I'd quote the source directly here:

If you enjoyed the unusual Punjab-themed cover of the Doctor Who theme that played over the closing credits this week, then you have Segun Akinola to thank – the series composer managed to find time to arrange the rethink of the iconic music amongst his other musical duties for Demons of the Punjab. (empahsis added)

That is what the source says. Not that the episode ended "without the theme" or a new composition, but with a different musical arrangement of the same theme. To say it ended without the theme (like Rosa) is wrong. I understand that the arrangement is so unfamiliar that some of you may not "hear" it, or that you may not be familiar with the difference between composition and arrangement in music, so briefly: the theme is what Ron Grainer composed in 1963. All the variations that have occurred since are arrangements. There have been many special arrnagements done over the years, including one that aired in Australia only, using a didgeriedoo (pardon my spelling). If you want to call attention to the unusualness of this, we're already doing that. It looks like this may be a trend for series 11, and that can be talked about on the series 11 page, but shouldn't be harped on here in this article by refering to something that isn't directly related, like an episode where the theme isn't played at all or where no music is played at all. It's sort of trainspotting.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the following

The episode's closing theme was arranged after the style of Punjabi music by series composer Segun Akinola, who shared photos of the musicians who performed it on his Twitter feed. The bold part was removed with the following explanation:

It would more prudent to include information about the orchestra and conductor who performed this, using the Twitter posts to back this up. You can't just rely on the current citation for this, as the style and tone of the information you put in is questionable, alongside questions over proper relevance)

I'm afraid I don't have any idea what you are talking about. What is "imprudent" about including the information that I included? Why is it better to include different information from the Twitter posts than what I included, at the same time as you saying the same citation is something "I just can't rely on" when it's a perfectly reliable source for the rest? Pray tell what is wrong with the style and tone? The word "photos"? It's not word-for-word from the source, but nearly. If you have a problem with the style and tone, suggest an improvement. If you think it's inappropriate explain why. What are these questions of proper relevance to which you allude but do not spell out? If you want to add the orchestra and other information as you suggest, do it yourself. As it stands you have given no reason for removing the information as presented other than you don't like it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

What I meant, is that that sentence does not work - what musicians are you talking about? If its the orchestra for this programme, then that line should not be included, but if was a different orchestra, you should make certain to clearly state that, and it would also best to find those twitter posts and make them separate citations. Using the citation you provided for this line is not good - you need to provide a secondary source to back it up - but you should try to expand it to be clear on what musicians you refer to. GUtt01 (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"who shared photos of the musicians who performed it on his Twitter feed." is pretty redundant. Every notable person can share/shares photos on their Twitter feed, and we do not include them here like your sentence. Sebastian James (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

While the sentence was actually backed up by the secondary source I provided, I now see where you are coming from. I agree that we could and should expand on this rather than leave the reader hanging this way, so for now it's better left unmentioned. There are in fact different performers, and they are playing traditional Punjabi instruments, something that was more obvious to me from the photos (reproduced in the source), probably why I thought I should add the text I wrote, but I didn't think it through--we could perhaps include one of those. There may have been more about this written in the source too, I don't have time to look or improve on the article myself right now (it's late for me), and I welcome anyone else doing so tonight. If not, I may have another crack at this tomorrow and try to do it justice. Thanks for your patience. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Critics consensus"

The episode received positive reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has an approval rating of 96%, based on 25 reviews, and an average score of 7.8/10, the critical consensus stating: "'Demons of Punjab' focuses on family and progress, solidifying the cohesive thematic stamp this season is making upon the greater series."

According to Sebastian James, this sentence is poorer, because I have merged two sentences with a comma after 7.8/10 and turned verb states into a present participle with a colon. This is grammatical and I see nothing "poor" about it. You may not like it, but that's not a reason to revert it. "The critics consensus states" is ungrammatical unless you put the words "critics consensus" in quotes to show that's what was written on RT. The way I had done it is how it's usually done on most TV show articles (or at any rate is how I've typically written it before, so that both items of information are shown to have the same source. I've been writing in English pretty effectively since about 1996, so I know my way around clauses, and I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so. However, if a consensus of other editors tell me my version is poor, I'll rethink how I write these in future. Here's an alternate version:

The episode received positive reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has an aggregate score of 96% based on 25 reviews for an average rating of 7.8/10, the "critics consensus" stating: "'Demons of Punjab' focuses on family and progress, solidifying the cohesive thematic stamp this season is making upon the greater series."

Maybe the problem is there were too many commas and "ands" in the original sentence. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the problem was too many commas and "ands" in the original sentence. Also, this looks vain and it is not collaborative: I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so. The "one editor" may be right, it's better if you take heed of one's advice. The critics consensus is not ungrammatical, if it was, then we wouldn't use it, or at least, we would always use it in qutoes. Sebastian James (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with you about something does not mean I am "not collaborative", much less "vain" (watch the personal attacks, please, unintentional though I am sure they may be). If I were as vain as you suggest, I'd not be seeking more opinons, or offering up another alternative as a compromise, now, would I? Whether you or I are right is irrelevant. If there is an issue between two editors who disagree on something, it's not better to heed "one's" advice over the other (you don't have "rank" and neither do I), but open it up to wider discussion, which is exactly what I did. Or offer a compromise, which I also did. Calling me vain and saying I should just "heed" your advice and move on is unhelpful.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Critics consensus" is jarring to the casual reader unfamiliar with the RT website. It invites random IPs to go and stick an apostrophe in there, somewhere, and likely in the wrong place as not. Hence the usual change to "critical consensus", which as you've already conceded elsewhere, is fine. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Vain" is not a personal attack (it generally means "having or showing an excessively high opinion of one's appearance, abilities, or worth." and "producing no result; useless."), and you have changed what I meant completely to another issue. Since you are also ignoring WP: CIVIL, i'm going to revert your edits until there is a consensus. Sebastian James (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk about the pot and the kettle. I have respectfully disagreed with you (yes, it's allowed), saying I'd wait for others' opinions. I've called you out for name-calling (which is uncivil). By reverting me on the supposed grounds of WP:CIVIL, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of my edits, and only to do with a problem you seem to have with me, during a discussion, you are going against WP:BRD and WP:CIVIL yourself. If you think I've been uncivil go ahead and report me and see what happens. You can do that, or you can revert yourself and wait along with me for others to respond, in a civil manner. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point it might be an idea to ping Alex, Mezigue, DonQuixote, and other regular editors of these pages. I feel bad doing so, as this is an extremely petty argument, but I think it's better to resolve things quickly and it's not going to happen with just the two of us. I am perfectly willing to work with you, Sebastian, but you need to learn that (a) collaboration is not forcing me to agree with you, and (b) calling other people names, saying their work is "useless", etc., really does amount to a personal attack, and (c) WP:BRD is all about patience and listening to everyone, not unilaterally deciding you are in the right--that way lies edit war, in which I will not be drawn. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand, 'Critics Consensus' is what Rotten Tomatoes uses, but on the other hand, 'critical consensus' or 'the consensus of critics' is more widely used. DonQuixote (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor already conceded that point and has left that part alone. Instead of offering an alternative here on the talk page, he's "reverted" other parts of the sentence during the ongoing discussion, turning it back into two sentences and other minor changes, without supplying a valid editorial reason (he said it was "because" I was "uncivil", that is, he thinks he's punishing me, therfore doing it out of spite, which is disruptive editing. On top of this, it now makes the same mis-statements it was making before, confusing terms like score and rating as used on RT. It should be reverted. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, I DID not call your "work" vain "Also, this looks vain and it is not collaborative: I don't accept that the way I rewrote the sentence was poor on one editor's say-so.". And I have never stated that you have to agree with me for collaboration nor calling other people names, saying their work is "useless", etc.. You are just unnecessarily changing the subject (he thinks he's punishing me). I don't know you, why would I bother to "punish" you? You have to reach a consensus before publishing this edit, that's it, but you will still continue this thing it seems. 95% of the time I edit TV/Film articles, and I have never seen "aggregate score" instead of approval rating, if that's what I'm "confusing", then maybe we should change them all to aggregate score. All I see is an editor who is trying desperately to make a fuss, and I'm only here for a consensus. Sebastian James (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

So what did you call vain? My response. How is that not uncivil? Not to say inaccuate. In the quote you give, I said I didn't accept how I rewrote the sentence was "poor" (your words) on one editor's say-so, which is to say, I was opening up a discussion, which is what you're supposed to do in WP:BRD. I'm sorry you took it the wrong way. I was not saying anything about you personally. We simply disagreed and I opened it up to discussion. It's BRD, bold, revert, discuss. Not bold, revert, discuss, bully/attack the other editor, and revert on facetious grounds and then come up with other reasons after the fact. You have a very odd idea of what consensus is. You're not waiting for anyone to weigh in at all. You clearly stated you were reverting me because you didn't like what I had to say or else the way I said it. Then you accuse me of twisting things, and changing the subject, when all along I have been tryiing to follow the rules of BRD, demonstrating patience and civility. You are absolutely incorrect that you have to reach a consensus before publishing an edit. You do have to reach a consensus before doing so during a BRD discussion, which is exactly what you are not doing. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)