Talk:Rose (Doctor Who episode)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive

This looks like a page despirite for an Archive you know its needed when the page is incredibly long and still has comments from 2005! - What do you think? --Wiggstar69 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image

Jockie123 (talk · contribs) recently changed the image from Image:doctorwhorose.jpg to Image:autons.jpg. The new image is nicely dynamic, but I don't think it illustrates the story as well as the old one — for one thing, since the story is called "Rose" it would be nice to have an image of her! I think I'll revert for now, but we can discuss it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Henrik

I don't believe the shop's name is mentioned, is it? I'll try and re-watch "Rose" again tonight but I believe it is the shop manager who's called Henrik, not the shop? Matthew 17:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's mentioned in dialogue, but the name "Henrik's" is clearly visible on the shop front and on shopping bags, etc.. The electrician to whom Rose tries to take the lottery money is Wilson. (And the sign on the door reading "Wilson C.E.O." was temporarily confusing to this Yank — this side of the pond, C.E.O. stands for "Chief Executive Officer", and means the top boss, not the electrician ("Chief Electrical Officer", I presume).) —17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

Ah, the episode that revived Doctor Who in 2005. And like any article for a Doctor Who episode, it has a hideously long plot summary and listy prose. Alientraveller 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah: lose the bullet points and see what happens? At the moment it looks a bit fragmented. BTW, episode titles, according to MoS, are in "quotation marks", with the series in italics. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the Doctor Who wikiproject, episode names are in italics. This is uniform throughout the Doctor Who articles. JameiLei 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't know the circumstances behind that decision but it seems at odds with the MoS. Fair enough if there is consistency with similar articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see that the reasoning is that italics are used for story titles. I see a comment on the talk page that directly addresses the use of quotation marks for episode titles rather than stories. Still, I'd hang on until they smooth it out: no point in arguing about it here. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Auton stories

Template:Auton stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says that "Doomsday" plays for the first time when Rose enters the TARDIS ; it doesn't, Rose runs into the TARDIS at the end of the episode with no music playing. Someone should change this.

"The Derbyshire theme was last heard on television in 1983..."

I am the only one who thinks that sounds iffy? As it doesn't take into account repeats? I'm inclined to rewrite it but I want to see what you guys think. Plus other people like Josiah and Khaosworks are better at rewrites than me anyhoo. --GracieLizzie 21:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaked Copy

"On 8 March, 2005, Reuters reported that a copy of the episode had been leaked onto the Internet, and was being widely traded via the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. The leaked episode did not contain the new arrangement of the theme tune by Murray Gold. The leak was ultimately traced to a third party company in Canada which had a legitimate preview copy. The employee responsible was fired by the company and the BBC is considering further legal action."

Does anyone know if there are any new developments with this story? yettie0711 (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was any legal action. Type 40 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Undo

Nice to see how 90 mins of work can be undone in 30 seconds. I think this will definatly be the last time I bother with this. I'd also get my donation back if I could. :( yettie0711 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so blunt, but the article was filling up with unimportant trivia and practically every word being wiki-linked multiple times. Please don't be discouraged. You are welcome to edit, but please remember this is an encyclodepia, not a fan site. — Edokter • Talk • 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

GA pre-review

Hello. I don't have time to review this properly at the moment so I won't do anything with tags to leave the way for other reviewers. Initial suggests would be:

• expand the lead so it covers all of the important points of the article. A three paragraph structure is normally good. Suggest the first to be what is there; the second a brief overview of the plot; and the third to cover reception?
• "While the site actually exists, it was created specifically for use in television programmes and films." ref?
• "A French-language version of this series of Doctor Who..." paragraph unsourced.

Good luck. As I say, I'm not "officially" reviewing this in terms of 'on hold' templates etc., so expect another reviewer along at some point. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 23, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail. Much of the early article is simplistic narration, and parts of the ending are very dry facts and dates. The lead is a little too brief, though not bad. The plot summary is an exact recount of basically every event, it could use a severe cut-down.

2. Factually accurate?: Semi-pass. Accuracy is great but there are in my opinion too few sources for an article of this length. I understand much of it is sourced from the episode itself, but again, much of it isn't and even though people familiar with the series may find some facts obvious knowledge we still need to source them.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Very thorough discussion of relevant topics, my only minor concern would be that you may be branching a little too far. But then again, there isn't all that much one can say about a TV episode, the article's themes may be all-right after all. (Forgive the monologue.)

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass, I don't think that's such an issue here though.

5. Article stability? Pass, no significant edit warring or yet-unresolved disputes.

6. Images?: Fail. Even though relevant images will likely be fair use, I believe due to the article's length a few annotative images would be great, and really serve to lighten the article up.

Well, that is why in my opinion this article is at the present time unsuited for GA status. Although with a little work, I doubt that reaching GA is far off. This is my first GA review though (and it's very late here), so if you wish I won't be offended if you re-list and try for a second opinion. Good luck.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— +Hexagon1 ^(t) 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I've been going through the Doctor Who TV story articles creating redirects, as suggested at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles — and I just realized that according to that guideline, this page is arguably at the wrong name. The guideline says:

Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode"

In the talk page archives, Khaosworks argued that Rose (Doctor Who) is sufficient disambiguation, and nobody replied. But I'm not sure that's correct. A literal reading of TV-NC would have this article at Rose (Doctor Who episode). But what does everyone else think?

At the very least, I think the article should have a hatnote pointing towards Rose Tyler, in case someone comes here looking for the character. (Yes, she's linked in the second line of the intro, but I think disambiguating hatnotes are useful.) Actually, this should probably happen even if the episode article is moved, because it's likely that Rose (Doctor Who) would remain as a redirect to Rose (Doctor Who episode), so even if the page is moved it's still possible that someone could arrive here when looking for the character. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The hatnote is a good idea JR. In my opinion I feel that WP:IAR should be applied here as far as moving the page is concerned. Partly due to the fact that the page has been fine here for years (although I know that "just because it has been that way" is not a reason to avoid change) and partly due to the fact that I can't think of another TV series that has an episode named Rose (doesn't mean that there isn't one out there though). If the episode was Rose Tyler I think that your point would have to be considered more strongly. But that is just my opinion - if a consensus is reached to move it let me know if I can help as I am happy to take the time to fix any double redirects etc. MarnetteD | Talk 07:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The potential ambiguity wouldn't be with any other TV episode, but with Rose Tyler, on the theory that some readers might not remember her last name and just think of her as "Rose off Doctor Who, you know, that Billie Piper before she did that show about the prostitute." But I agree that this may be a case for IAR — a hatnote is probably sufficient. I'll add one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Rose Tyler" is not the same episode title "Rose", so technically this falls outside the naming convention. I think no further disambiguation is needed, apart form the hatnote. — Edokter • Talk • 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, do we need a hatnote? Rose Tyler is already linked in the first two paragraphs. — Edokter • Talk • 13:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how much reading we're willing to force a hypothetical reader who arrived at this page looking for the character to do before they find what they're looking for. I think that a hatnote is best practice in a case like this, but I admit that it's not the most obvious case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Added images

I noticed that one of the reasons that this article failed its GA nomination was due to lack of images so I added two images under fair use. This is the first time I've added images like this to an article so let me know if I made any mistakes. Thanks. Fredrik Wilhelm (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding more non-free images just to enhance the look of the article isn't really appropriate, even if the GA review stated that it needed more. At least, just adding more screens from the episode itself is not helpful since they appear to fail WP:NFC#8, significance (they're plot elements but not critical to the reader's understanding of the article). Better images would non-free images relating to the production, if any, or free images of the various actors or other aspects of the article. --MASEM

I concur with Masem. I would contest any GA review that failed an article solely on the grounds that there were not enough images. Hexagon1 highlighted other issues, though.⋅The JPS^{talk to me} 13:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. I've removed the images since I agree that they don't meet WP:NFC#8. Fredrik Wilhelm (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Content advisories

user:Robbiebrack wants to add advisories for parents detailing every act of violence in the new series episodes. I have been reverting them as I do not find it appropriate. Arguments? MartinSFSA (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep an eye on him. You are right. Such sections are inappropriate, per WP:NOT. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"The assembled hordes of Genghis Khan"

When the Doctor says

"The assembled hordes of Genghis Khan couldn't get through those doors, and believe me they've tried"

Is this just the Doctor showing off or a reference to a past episode? If so, which one? --Old Marcus (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, we shouldn't be discussing such things here (because Wikipedia is not a forum; the Doctor Who Forum is that way), but in brief: it's not a reference to any previous episode. The Doctor did meet Genghis Khan's grandson Kublai in Marco Polo, and the Doctor Who Reference Guide says that some soldiers of Möngke Khan or Batu Khan actually got into the TARDIS in the novel Bunker Soldiers (I haven't read it). But the line in "Rose" is probably just a reference to an unseen adventure. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for putting it here, I just reckoned I would get an answer here. Thanks for the reply anyway. --Old Marcus (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 13:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC) GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 13:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Rose (Doctor Who) → Rose (Doctor Who episode) — As with the television episode "Dalek", the use of just "Doctor Who" in parenthesis as the disambiguator is ineffective, as "Rose (Doctor Who)" could easily refer to the character Rose Tyler. --84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose That is insufficient resason; the titles are adequately disambiguated. As "Dalek" is ambiguous, and the character is named Rose Tyler, there should't be any confusion. It also goes against our disambiguation guidelines, which states that the disambigiation part should be as short as possible. — Edokter • Talk • 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the character is normally referred to as just "Rose" within the context of most episodes, her full name is used less commonly. I like short disambiguations too, but "Doctor Who" is much too ambiguous. See the redirect Martha (doctor who). If you really hate the idea of a long disambiguation, you could always try Rose (episode), but I think that's weaker than what I'm suggesting. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

We always use full common names for characters. I repeat there is no confusion stemming from the current nameing. (Oh and, the 'Martha (doctor who)' should never have been there). Besides, there is also Rose (Doctor Who character) as a redirect, so the main issue is which one is more popular. At this time, it is the epsiode. — Edokter • Talk • 14:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as there have been several "Rose" things in Doctor Who over the decades. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Opppose as per standard TV episode naming convention (WP:TV-NC) and that the article appropriate disambiguates between Rose the episode and Rose Tyler the character at the very top. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.