Talk:Knock Knock (Doctor Who)

Plot summaries lately : I don't mean to be rude but...

Whoever's starting these lately: English is clearly not your first language by a long way ("precocious sexuality" in the "The Pilot" and "seeing past" someone's disappareance in this one, and this: "a strange cockroach-like creature which the doctor opts as a “Dryad” climbs out of the wood") Opts? Are you using Google translate or some other thesaursus for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article? Please, stop. There are plenty of people here writing whose first language is English, and they are pretty good at it. Please expend your energy in another way, maybe by adding references/sources to existing text? Or why don't you write the plot summary in your own language and contribute that on a Wikipedia in your own language? Seriously, English Wikipedia is not here for you to practice your writing skills and learn from us having to re-write the entire plot. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

I seem to be getting into an edit war (which i want to avoid....) over the prime ministers. I don't feel any of them need to be referenced except Harriet Jones who is clearly the only connection to who. Anyone want to throw in suggestions as to whether they should be referenced or not? Cheers Rhysy54 (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Further note...is there any point to have it in? I'd presume by series 10 the vast majority of people would know who harriet jones and if they didn't, it really added nothing to the overall plot....Rhysy54 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The way to approach an episode article is to assume that the reader has zero understanding of the history of the series. Now, that doesn't mean we need to spell out who the Doctor is or what the TARDIS is (we link them), since those are much larger topics than the episode itself, but smaller bits can be useful, and I would say here identifying Jones as being a fictional PM earlier in the series' history as sourced continuity is fine. I do agree, however, listing out all the other PMs is unnecessary, though a statement like "The Doctor includes the character Harriet Jones among several real-world persons that have been PM of Britian." or something like that alludes to the fact they were mentioned. (maintains the out-of-universe approach). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, it's a bit of trainspotting, even if it's from a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Why is the reference to Harriet Jones trainspotting. The quote is obviously a blatant reference to her; it is not trainspotting. Therefore, it's fine to put in, also because it's sourced. TedEdwards 20:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Does it play an important part of the plot? If not, then it's trainspotting. It's just a bit of referencing for fans and serves no other purpose. DonQuixote (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree here with Don on this argument; I know it can be sourced but it doesn't have any impact on the plot and more a throwaway line. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree, the plot does not change in the slightest if the Harriet Jones reference is removed. If the landlord had replied with "Yes, I know who she is" then it possibly it would start to pass as continuity - but even more may be required. Dresken (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

God knows you're all likely sick of me weighing in lately. ;) Agreed, we don't need to reference the real world PMs for the same reason there was no need to reference real world places like Wiltshire etc. Outside references is for literary and artistic works from what I can see. Re Harriet Jones: if "Sullivan's gas" is worth a reference to Harry (Zygon Invasion/Inversion), or the name-checking of the Valeyard in "In the Name of the Doctor" deserves a note, I'd suggest name-dropping HJ is in the same league, the same type of back reference to a recurring character we've been noting all along. I say this with due humility as it's rare for me to disagree with the likes of cool-headed Don Quixote. Useful though it is, I don't think the degree to which the plot is affected is the only litmus test applicable. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly ZarhanFastfire I think you've been doing a great job of bringing this issue to light and taking steps to improve articles. I don't think we need to include this instance of name-dropping here because other articles do similar things elsewhere - depending on the reference maybe they need to be removed as well. For this example it is irrelevant to understanding this episode at all - being non-British the only two names I recognised were HJ and Thatcher. But understanding of point of the line is not improved by knowing who the people in it are. Plot relevance might not be the only litmus test - but whatever those other measures ultimately are - I think this is a good example of what should not meet it. May be this conversation needs to move over to the WP:WHO/MOS Cheers, Dresken (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably so. That being said, I think most of us are agreed most of the time about this kind of thing but it would be helpful to all of us to have some agreed set of criteria, a checklist or something. It seems to me that anything that is directly relevant to the plot would already be in the plot summary anyway (or should be, with the appropriate hyperlink to an article) so it doesn't need to be in the continuity section. What's left over would be some things that cannot be worked in that way, like Barbara saying "Not again!" One thing I do feel strongly about is that it's a bit absurd to note when a character was "last seen" or "next seen" or "first seen" as frequently happens on the classic series articles (largely because we don't have time to "police" them as often as we'd like). So if we do keep HJ in continuity, it certainly shouldn't be written the way that it was before being removed by Alex. If it's to be there at all, it should be something like "When the Doctor recites a list of Prime Ministers, he mentions HJ." (And yes I can see how silly that looks. I'm too tired to think of how I'd write it properly.) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Many Continuity references are throwaways that have little or no bearing on the plot. They are just fun little factoids referencing things from the show's past that fans love to encounter and even search for. I could undoubtedly, given the time, find dozens of such references in past articles that have never been questioned. Ever. Granted, not every item needs to be included, and vigilance against overloading articles with minutiae should be maintained. In regard to the Harriett Jones reference, I say "Yes!". Include it!! Harriett Jones has been referenced before -- just look at "The Zygon Invasion", which referenced the running joke about people knowing who she is. That's been a valid reference for years, and the one made in "Knock Knock" is equally valid. It should be reinstated and LEFT ALONE! Thank you.Ooznoz (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Ooznoz

Other Stuff Exists isn't a valid rational. But to that point, I have noticed that more and more with the DW series that third-parties tend to include these casual continuity elements rather that giving more concrete ones that are essential to appreciating the episode. We do probably need to weed those out from older articles and set a higher bar for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ooznoz: "Fun little factoids" is the definition of WP:TRIVIA and an example of WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT. While these pages are written by editors who happen to be fans of the show (by and large), we should never forget that obsessive fans are not the intended audience: the general reader is, up to and including people who arrive at the page more or less by accident or by following links. It's an encyclopedia, remember, not a fan site.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with either of you, and even though I'm a fan of the series, I also try to keep continuity to a minimum and mostly relevant. However, to my observation, there also seems to be a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" aspect to much of Doctor Who editing; i.e., if there's an element that certain editors don't like (and this happens quite a bit), they simply jettison the whole reference, regardless of its applicability or relevance, then call it "trainspotting" or "trivia". This is a very frustrating element to me which saps a lot of the enjoyment of editing these pages for me. I know I'm just one person, but it still unsettles me, and I CAN name names (but I won't). This is what happened with the Harriet Jones reference - a reference that harked back to almost the beginning of the series (callbacks to which Series 10 is doing much of). But, because it was surrounded by unneeded detail re other PMs, it was completely removed. Even when attempts were made to streamline it properly, it was still taken out. This has happened before to me and other editors. I've rarely encountered this sort of autocracy on any other TV series pages I've been involved in with editing. Okay, I've said my piece. Thanks for listening. Ooznoz (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Ooznoz

First, I'll say that really, everyone's just trying to follow WP policy as they see it, I've seen how these people work for a while now and they are first and foremeost committed to making these pages professional and accurate good reads. I don't think any of them are autocrats, though I'll concede most are a lot more succinct in their comments than I am and occasionally this can come across as snapping. Second, and to the point, actually, I'm still okay with leaving her in too (somehow) but consensus seems to have gone the other way on this one (counting myself and TedEdwards, there were three for keeping and I think four for not):@DQ, Masem, Dresken, Rhysy54 (sorry to ping you all, but it's been a couple of weeks). Consider this my final pitch that this isn't just trainspotting. I don't think the argument that the non-British audience doesn't know who the other PMs are anyway is an argument for keeping it out; in fact, I'd argue the opposite: it's a British show and that audience is generally expected to recognize the names of recent PMs. For that reason HJ's name has to jarr with the principal audience, whether the audience knows who she is or not, but particularly if they don't know who she is, which brings me to another point: the argument "they should know who she is by now". Our age is showing if we are going to assert that: the truth is, she's not appeared in the series since before Matt Smith. It all seems like yesterday to us, who've been watching since 2005. But how many years ago is it now? Twelve. Lots of (mostly) younger people haven't seen Ecclestone's or even Tennant's episodes. Like I said, I'm okay with following consensus on this (as always and perforce) but having reflected upon it, I'm still for having this one in. The plot may not turn on this as such, but a chunk of the audience won't understand why there's this mysterious unheard-of PM in that string. That strikes me as a good enough reason to have a brief sentence and the reference. If you all still disagree, fine, I'm pretty sure I've got nothing else to add. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I spent some time looking at some other continuity sections. I'm definitely see a difference with something like "Charley, C'rizz, Lucie, Tamsin, and Molly" as it is noteworthy out of universe for referencing Big Finish characters and is a no-brainer. However, it was "gobby Australian" that has made me question my view here - I don't see a problem with this one and it is not much different to name dropping - you are probably right that it is mostly getting wording wrong initially and including the other PMs that have put me and others off it completely. Dresken (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire@DreskenThank you both for your input and comments. I appreciate being heard and considered. :) Regarding the HJ entry, as it stands, the consensus stands at 3 for & 3 against. Me, I still believe it should be included. I've discovered no less than five outside sources making the same reference, so I can't understand why Wikipedia doesn't include it. Still, healthy debate is good and sometimes necessary, so let's keep the discussion going. Thanks. Ooznoz (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Ooznoz

• Comment: Please be aware that results of discussions are not a vote, but through consensus and the strength of the arguments. "the consensus stands at 3 for & 3 against" has no meaning whatsoever. -- Alex^TW 23:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Alex^TW I was not implying that 3 & 3 is a vote, just that the discussion is now at a standstill and consensus is deadlocked (sealed? Sorry. So so sorry. Okay, I'll stop. lol) Just making an observation. Ooznoz (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Ooznoz

Thinking aloud, but per my suggestions above, here's a possible sentence:"The Doctor names recent Prime Ministers, including Harriet Jones, to see if the Caretaker recognizes any of them." (Best I've come up with so far). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

How about this?: "Testing the Caretaker, the Doctor names several recent Prime Ministers, among them Harriet Jones, to see if he recognizes any of them. Harriet Jones first appeared in "Aliens of London" and was shown elected Prime Minister as of "The Christmas Invasion". Ooznoz (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Ooznoz

I wouldn't mind Testing the Caretaker, the Doctor names several recent Prime Ministers, among them Harriet Jones, to see if he recognizes any of them. written as part of the plot summary, but under Continuity it's just train spotting because it's a throw-away reference for hardcore fans to spot. DonQuixote (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI too, its "the Landlord" not "the Caretaker" Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep thinking "caretaker" from some earlier episode... @Don Quxiote. Agreed, at this point it's just dangling if we leave it in Continuity and I've become so fixated on Continuity I'd forgotten my own point that some things can easily be covered in the plot! And by the way @Alex: Sorry I should have included you in my ping above as the "prime remover". OK, somewhere in the plot then: "Testing the Landlord, the Doctor names several recent Prime Ministers, among them Harriet Jones, to see if he recognizes any of them, but the Landlord--" I can't remember how he responds: seemed to me he was either not really paying attention or changes the subject. ZarhanFastfire (talk)), 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with including it within the Plot rather than Continuity. Let's try this:

"The Doctor insinuates himself among Bill's friends, to Bill's consternation, but is troubled by the numerous noises the house makes, including knocking back when the Doctor knocks on the walls. That night, the Landlord mysteriously appears, ostensibly to check on the students. Suspicious of him, the Doctor tests him by asking who the Prime Minister is and names several, including Harriet Jones. The Landlord, however, evades the question and leaves."

Can we all agree to this, or something like it? Ooznoz (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Ooznoz

Given lack of objections, I have added the text. (Incidentally, apart from what's already been said, I think the sentence adds a bit in terms of fleshing out the Landlord a little more.)ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Fields/Fields House

As a family member of a previous owner, I've corrected the piece to distinguish between "The Fields", 62 Fields Park Road - which is the Blink House, and "Fields House", 18 Fields Park Avenue - which is the Knock Knock House.

Ironically, there's actually a bit in Knock Knock that was filmed in the cellar of "The Fields".