Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who series 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nickps (talk | contribs) at 14:56, 31 May 2024 (Updated DISPLAYTITLE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleDoctor Who series 6 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starDoctor Who series 6 is the main article in the Doctor Who (Series 6) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2019Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Did the Silence cause the TARDIS to explode?

The article intro says 'The series continues story threads from Series 5, investigating the mysterious Silence that caused the TARDIS to explode in "The Pandorica Opens" / "The Big Bang"' . Was it ever conclusively indicated that the Silence caused the TARDIS to explode? It's certainly not confirmed from the linked reference text, and all that I recall from the show itself is that the voice of (presumably) whoever caused the TARDIS explosion said "Silence will fall", which indicates knowledge of, but not necessarily affiliation with, the Silence. - - Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's been corrected. DonQuixote (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely something within the Silence organization/religion (in an attempt to kill the Doctor, probably), but not necessarily the species themself. Glimmer721 talk 00:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing definitive so it's all speculation at this point. Personally, my speculations lean away from the Silence because The Voice seemed (a) vastly more powerful than anything the Silence had at their disposal and (b) perfectly willing to destroy the universe (whereas the Silence's goal is to protect the universe from the Doctor). It seems more the style of someone like Rassilon. But given Moffat's general reluctance to use any of Russell T. Davies' characters, my leading suspicion is that it's either the Dreamlord, a new character or a classic villain such as Omega or the Black Guardian (maybe The Master, but it seems beyond his scope). Hopefully by the end of the upcoming season we'll know. :) --Irrevenant [ talk ] 01:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DID they investigate what caused the TARDIS to explode?

The intro text now says "The series continues story threads from Series 5, investigating the mysterious Silence, the cause of the TARDIS exploding in "The Pandorica Opens" / "The Big Bang" and the identity of River Song.[3]" Sorry to be a pain, but I don't recall them actually investigating the cause of the TARDIS exploding in Series 6. This Series focussed entirely on the impending death of the Doctor, River Song's origins and the Silence. I'm not sure if the referenced actually supports this sentence or not - that comes down to whether Moffat was specifically talking about Season 6, or about upcoming Dr Who in general. But if it does refer to Season 6, Moffat overpromised and underdelivered because that plot thread was just left hanging (so far). --Irrevenant [ talk ] 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially that sentence is taken from the Doctor Who Confidential from the Series 5 finale. Moffat, in listing the open threads, pointed out the Silence which he said was involved with the TARDIS explosion, and said the point of Series 6 was the Silence. Not necessarily investigating the Silence's destruction of the TARDIS but the Silence organization and species themself. The sentence isn't saying they were investigating why the TARDIS exploded but the Silence which caused it to explode. And yeah, the death of the Doctor should be mentioned. That sentence has been on the page before the series began airing, so that mystery wasn't known yet. I plan to remake this page like series 5 but time has been an issue (no pun intended). Glimmer721 talk 02:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doctor Who (series 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Doctor Who (series 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

PASSED GA
Prose feels tight, and expanded where necesary - support a promotion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Who (series 6)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - y
  • It contains copyright infringements - Not so sure. Copyvio check isn't happy [2]
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Y
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -Y

Prose

Lede

Main prose

Notes & References

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

Placed on hold - Quite a few issues above that need checking before I can pass/fail. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: All points have been considered and worked on. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 06:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good - promoting now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_6&oldid=1226577407"