Talk:The Bells of Saint John

Repeated Editing

This article is being mangled by every Whovian that wants to stuff it full of unnecessary details. Can we stop editing it every five minutes please? Also, are some of you being paid by the comma? Holy run-on sentences Batman. Wtbe7560 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

NO MORE EDITING NOW. I have just finished the last one, and don't want to see people saying "Oh, wait this needs this, and this needs that." It has been edited enough. Only grammar and spelling corrections, PLEASE, from now on. If there are any details for continuity or other factors, other than Synopsis, feel free to edit those, but the plot is now fully explained and does not need further changing. I'm sorry if I'm ranting, I don't usually, but most people are probably frustrated to see changes occurring every five minutes or so. To all who edited this, your contributions are appreciated, and you have done well to clear up things. Please can we now leave the page to be admired by all... GUtt01 17:50, 1st April 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify this, quite clearly. NO - MORE - EDITING - PLEASE!!! Only spelling and grammar corrections (mark so if you are doing this). Particularly in Synopsis (someone added in a minor detail about something in regards to a scene from the episode, which SHOULD NOT have been put in. It could have be put in a Notes section if someone wants to create it). Only add information from now on if it should be known but not if it will frustrate people further if it shouldn't have been included. PLEASE, I ask we now give this article rest from the editing storm... I will be monitoring this to see if people have heeded my words... GUtt01 18:22 1st April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUtt01 (talk • contribs)

You can't stop people from editing. And right now, it's not an edit war, just a lot of inexperienced editors trying to add details where we generally don't. That's not a problem. This happens with any "current" topic, just give it a few days and it will settle down. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are terrible. Your plot is overly detailed for no good reason. There's a lot of minor points (like the part about The Doctor being the best tech support in the universe) that simply DO NOT BELONG IN THIS ARTICLE. Wtbe7560 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand; but what I don't want to see is unnecessary editing. Spelling and grammar corrections are alright now on the synopsis and the rest of the article, and if anyone wants to include images, that's okay too. And whoever put up the image of the Shard recently, pat yourself on the back. It's connected to the episode and is insightful. Well Done. :-D GUtt01 (talkcontribs 19:38 1st April 2013 (UTC)

That simply isn't how Wikipedia works. The window in which you edit is surmounted by the waning "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited... by anyone". You can't stop then, even by shouting at them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I just hope we don't see too many more changes, though I'm glad someone actually corrected the part about the plane not landing at Heathrow (I can't believe I missed that). Anyway, I just hope the synopsis is just corrected in spelling and grammar now, I think its fine as it is now; oh, and can someone put in an image of the Doctor and Clara together - either in the cockpit of the plane, or on the motorbike, or in the TARDIS? Any of these ones will do, I think we should see that... GUtt01 (talkcontribs 13:59 2nd April 2013 (UTC)

We have a strict policy on the use of copyrighted images that they need to have more than just looking nice to be included. As I noted below, there's really no scene, on plot alone, that requires an image to understand, but this should not deter if there is information in the production of the episode that may be able to support an image. (In contrast, the Shard image is free, and can be used as it is without a problem). --MASEM (t) 15:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have an inset showing The Shard on the page. They are only near it briefly and only in it for a few minutes on screen. Having a link to it in the text should be plenty. Wtbe7560 (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suspect most ppl outside of England (perhaps London) are unaware of what it is. Further as a free image there is zero harm in having it there, particularly to understand that the Doctor scales that building at some point. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of other free images we could jam in here too, that doesn't mean they should be here. If someone is unfamiliar with the building they can click the link in the text and read all about it. The building isn't central to the plot, it isn't even shown until 3/4 of the way into the episode. Wtbe7560 (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Writer

Why is this episode down as being written by Steven Moffat and the first episode of series 7b? It isn't. Cwmxii (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the only reliable source about the episode says it'll be the first episode of series 7b. I don't know where Steven Moffat as writer came from. Please find a reliable source that says who the writer is, and if you also find a reliable source saying it's not the first episode but is somewhere else in the series, then please also add that source. Ratemonth (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Who’s Been Hexed?. Seems the writer is Neil Cross. 192.171.4.126 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cardassians

Are we sure that the enemy is the Spoonheads, since this is the nickname of the Cardassians ? 195.169.141.54 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "spoonheads" is not used anywhere in the episode, therefore it should not be used in this article. Wtbe7560 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Imre's character chastises one of her underlings for using the term. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Title

Doctor Who Magazine #458 uses The Bells of Saint John instead of The Bells of St John. Hektor (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Great Intelligence

The page Great Intelligence also needs to be rewritten to reflect this episode. I've added a small bit about Richard E. Grant, but it probably needs expanding.

Woodgreener (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wi-Fi

Does anybody know if the symbols used in the Wi-Fi network names are ASCII characters, or what they are at all? Cyberjacob (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Two plot headings

There are separate headings for the prequel and the main episode. This might need to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.83.145 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been like that. See "The Impossible Astronaut", et al. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Image

The current image doesn't really add anything. What do we think about changing it to a Spoonhead (maybe the Doctor's?). I'm doing the critical reception section right now, and a lot of critics are underwhelmed by them, so that would be rationale enough, though they are not the main point of the episode. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need any image for this episode. (I've nominated the current one for deletion, it clearly doesn't work for NFCC). While the spoonheads are an interesting idea, I don't think the idea is complicated or the like to require an image. Same with probably one of the other more memoriable scenes, that of the Doctor riding up the side of the Shard. That is strictly coming from what was shown in the plot. If there are filming and broadcast details that we can use to support an image (as with the few other new DW episodes that have one), then that's different, but off plot alone, there's nothing to support an image. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Real World reference

Could the comment by Mahler be added to a "Real World Reference" section? When Alexei locates the Tardis at South Bank Mahler says "Are we sure this time? Earl's Court was an embarrassment.". His line references the real world Tardis located outside Earl's Court Tube Station. There is a picture of it on this wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_box 121.218.73.26 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Swampy

We'd need a citation to say that's what he was referencing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The BBC official page on the episode do? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rryzz/features/the-bells-of-saint-john-the-fourth-dimension

The BBC page says: '“Earls Court was an embarrassment…” This line refers to an area of London which has a ‘real-life’ police box – looking very much like the Doctor’s TARDIS – close to its tube station.' 121.218.73.26 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Swampy

Plot section

A reminder that plot sections need to remain concise. People want to add little tiny details, this is not the place for it; what's in the plot should be critical to understanding the story as a whole, not the little things. (The whole "nanny" thing, for example, is extraneous. For now. Knowing Moffet, this might be important later, but until we know, we shouldn't be adding it.) --MASEM (t) 13:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have spent a little time on it correcting obvious inaccuracies etc, but it needs more yet and some trimming. I didn't want to affect prose too much, but some words are just not used in Britain, such as "gotten". Chaosdruid (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Joke is driving me mad...

Apologies for the non-article related query, but I'm hoping that someone here can help me! In this episode Clara makes a joke about Twitter, which prompts The Doctor to catch on to an important plot point. The thing is, I swear I have heard that plot point used somewhere else but it is completely escaping me where I have come across it before! It was either someone making a joke about a thing they should know nothing about, or a joke about something that they didn't know about before but somehow now know. I have no idea if I have seen it on the TV or heard it in a radio drama. But I'm sure I've come across it before...

Thanks, Stephen! ^Coming... 23:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In-jokes and references

I don't have a non-original-research way of mentioning the Tom Bakerish scarf hanging over the mirror in the foyer of the house where Clara is staying, but thought I'd mention it in case somebody else does. Similarly with the clothes he tosses out of the trunk, which I couldn't identify authoritatively even in slo-mo.NoJoy (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Spoonheads

One or more editors keep removing the explanation of what "Spoonheads" are. It is not appropriate to refer to them with no prior explanation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame that that happened. I reinserted the explanation but into Production. It's a rough first-draft, though, that needs a little bit of copyediting. DonQuixote (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask why it's being removed from the plot section? Unfortunately I don't have a way to rewatch the episode but I could have sworn the name was thrown out there in connection to the robots? Seems no reason to remove from the plot if it mentioned there. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't know why it was removed. And it was mentioned once when Alexei called them Spoonheads. DonQuixote (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I removed the explanation once (many edits ago) because the word did not reappear again in the summary so it seemed pointless. It was also badly written. It's exactly the sort of thing that isn't needed in an article anyway, if it can be avoided. If other editors insist on including it, it also seems to me it shouldn't be spelled with a capital letter as it's just a nickname for an object. Mezigue (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a named "monster" for all purposes, once named, there no reason not to call the other Spoonheads by the same name. (and yes, capitalized unless we're told differently; it's certainly not a common term to merit lower case). Yes, we need one sentence in the plot to say the Spoonheads are the humanoid Wi-Fi bases, but after that , we can use Spoonheads to refer to these. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

They're discussed in the critical reception section later on, too. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Who gave Clara the Doctor's phone number?

Any ideas? And is this covered by the sources? Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Some speculate it could be River Song, but no one knows (yet). Glimmer721 ^talk 00:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll probably find out in a future episode. –anemoneprojectors– 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

God I hope not, I'm about River Song-ed out at this point. There are sites out there that discuss Billie Piper's return for the 50th anniversary special, but so far it is only gossip and speculation that connects that to this, so it'd be a bit WP:SYNTHy to connect A to B at the moment. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuity, the meddling monk

Not sure if this counts as WP:OR or continuity. There are distinct parallels between The Doctor posing as a monk in 1207 in Cumbria, and his meeting of The Monk (Meddling Monk) in 11th Century Northumbria. Northumbria previously included parts of Cumbria, some of which were captured by King Oswald in the 7th century. The Monk was the first time lord other than the Dr (or poss. Susan) to appear in the series, and may have in fact been The Master.86.25.5.227 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuity should be reserved for direct references. The Doctor doesn't say something like, "I once knew a guy who looked like this" or something. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• But didn't the Doctor also dress as a monk in that story? long time since Ive seen it but worth a mention? Also Tom Baker dr 4 was an actual monk in real life for a time and Tom also played the mad russian monk Rasputin, not to mention a dirty vicar in "The Lives and Loves of a She Devil" tv series.. 81.111.126.82 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)