Talk:Deep Breath (Doctor Who)

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Deep Breath (Doctor Who) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 July 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a rough cut of "Deep Breath", the first episode of the eighth series of Doctor Who, was leaked online six weeks before the episode was due to air?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Deep Breath (Doctor Who).

Wikipedia

Spoiler Notice

Please delete all information gathered from Spoiler Websites. Although there is a possibility that they are truthful, they could just be gossip. Soccersalvatore (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Soccersalvatore: what information are you referring to? Because if the only reason you want it deleted is because it's a spoiler, please see WP:SPOILER. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I meant spoliers shouldn't be put on the page, because they may be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccersalvatore (talk • contribs) 23:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again: what are you referring to? I don't know what you view as a "spoiler", and unless you tell me, I can't judge the merit of your statements. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Soccersalvatore:: I think you mean rumours. We don't include rumours anyways. DonQuixote (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-who-scripts-leak-five-3823825 Here BBC confirms the scripts as accurate. I am avoiding the page but it doesn't mean we ought to throw policy out the window. Just avoid reading if spoilers bother you.(like i am)Winfredtheforth (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the casting of Matt Smith from this Wikipedia entry, it has not been officially announced and until the episode itself has aired would ruin the surprise of his cameo appearance for people looking at this page. It ruined the surprise for me at least and I don't want this to be the case for other fans. WillisOnTheWeb (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please see WP:SPOILER. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page still need to be protected? I'm a new user with a plot hole I'd like to highlight on the article page and I can't do it until the page is unprotected. John.r.wells (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can post the specific change here and it can be added. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia doesn't do plot holes. DonQuixote (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:John.r.wells the episode has aired, spoilers are not a problem, the basic structure of the article is finished but it needs fleshing out. It doesn't need to be semi protected anymore. User:176.26.175.223

Time to undo semi protection. Was made to keep spoiler of Matt Smith cameo a secret, we know he was in it, protection is redundant for that reason now. 26 August 2014.User:176.26.175.223

It automatically expires on the 9th of September. DonQuixote (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Length

Most early sources reported the episode to be 75 minutes. However, later reports (including a number from guests at the early screening) have reported the length to be 80 minutes. One source has even stated that it is 87 minutes long [1]. Given the amount of uncertainty, perhaps we should remove the runtime from the article until the sources seem to agree? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has reserved an 80-minute timeslot for the eipsode. I think we can safely go with that. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the BBFC that is is 94 minutes [here]. But that is for the cinema release, and I believe it is also including some other stuff that is not part of the episode. We can't go by this, but I have seen the leaked episode and it was 75 minutes. Charlr6 (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 Official BBC sources are stating that it was 75 Minutes and also 80 Minutes. We have a problem. But on a personal note, I timed how long the episode was and I can say it was 80 Minutes. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

The current one (just showing Calpadi's Doctor on the banks looking up) is really not good per NFCC#8. Last series the BBC provided title cards but I have yet to see these. If no such titles do come, I would recommend that a much clearer, appropriate shot, is one that involves the Doctor looking at the face of the android, as such that the viewer can see the SFX/manner that the android's face is constructed, as my initial pass through of reviews suggests that this SFX had some positive praise. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like those title cards, never have; they add nothing. I'll skim the episode and see if I can get a good shot. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that the title cards aren't always the best but are fine if there's no immediately visual elements to grab. But here's a case that I think, like with "A Town Called Mercy", the SFX of the cyborg should take priority since 1) it represents a unique visual aspect of the episode and 2) appears to be the subject of critical discussion, which likely won't happen with the title card if BBC does produce one here. But I would definitely try to sneak in a few that includes Capaldi into it (during the faceoff in the restaurant while on the balloon?) --MASEM (t) 19:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about the first picture here (the promotional image for the episode) or the DVD cover when it comes out on the 8th of next month? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilled with that until that turns out to be the act title card like those from series 7. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the DVD cover is probably the best option. It's not like we need to rush to get a picture up, after all. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a snapshot of the scene when the Doctor is in the alley way looking in the mirror with the tramp standing next to him as he looks at his new face and ponders why he has been given a face he has seen before? User:94.8.193.37 31 August 2014

Either that, or a snapshot of the scene where the Doctor asks the Half Faced man to look into the tray at his face to see if he can remember where he got it from and as he does it the Doctor also stares into the tray. That shot has a visual on the Half Faced man and the Doctor looking into the tray pondering where he got his from. User:94.8.193.37 31 August 2014

This picture http://whatculture.com/tv/doctor-who-12-reasons-to-love-the-twelfth-doctor.php/12 User:90.198.11.152 7 September 2014.

That seems an appropriate one. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the sentence "message reading "The Impossible Girl" in a newspaper, directing them to a restuarant where they reunite,"

the word restaurant has a typo, it's written restuarant

Gnaphron (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --MASEM (t) 05:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undo, that is not a reason to request a semi protection. The episode aired 4 days ago, revert this decision. Request for semi protection to be undone. User:94.8.193.37 — Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. This is not a request for protection, but an edit request because it is protected. The request was for a spelling mistake to be corrected. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The significant "doctor's boyfriend" reference mentioned all through the episode

Throughout the episode earlier, it kept referring to Clara has "The Doctor's boyfriend" which she kept denying. The episode says nothing more on that but shows Clara having brown eyes and Missy having blue eyes. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's trainspotting to make this observation - that is, while certainly Clara's mentioned as the Doctor's boyfriend, and Missy calls herself the Doctor's boyfriend, there is nothing compelling us to have to try to compare who Missy and Clara are (and that they have different eyes). It's a an interesting observation, but that as no secondary source has noted that, it's extraneous to include in WP. Perhaps this might be something later? If retroactively people note this, then certainly we can add it. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's from the show itself. If you say that the synopsis can only include second and tertiary sources, then you should remove the entire synopsis here and from every TV show, film, and book from Wikipedia? Why don't you? It's because wikis are populated by people who get their jollies ruining the work of other people. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the two is not from the show itself--it's your own personal conjecture. See WP:NOR, particularly, WP:SYNTHESIS. DonQuixote (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what trainspotting is - making conclusions that can be made from the show, but have no obvious significance. The plot is clearly there, but we start talking about, say, all the little references to the past, that's trainspotting, and we could spend hours (or in Wiki language, several paragraphs) covering all those. But instead, we elevate ourselves and look to see if other sources make these observations for us, showing that others thought the points notable (eg for example, how the Doctor recalled having seen his face before). I've not seen anyone try to connect Clara to Missy yet just because they both called themselves the Doctor's boyfriend, and certainly haven't seen anything say either way if Clara is Missy or not. So we can't include it until it is sourced that way. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Pond reference

Capaldi (Doctor) says "It's at times like this I miss Amy" when he asked Clara if she could reach the screwdriver. An Amy Pond reference should go into the "Continuity" category on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.32.58.138 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

It achieved a final figure of 9.17 million, not 6 million. Change this to update article. User:94.8.193.37 31 August 2014.

Source? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 14:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the source ^[1] User:94.8.193.37 31 August 2014. — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9.17 is the final viewing figure, will you add it or not? It did not get 6 million. This needs to be changed to 9.17. User:2.126.115.66 1 September 2014.

Done --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 13:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/deep-breath-uk-ratings-65855.htm

Ship of Theseus

Just a note that a link to Ship of Theseus would be nice, as the Doctor refers to the paradox in his description of the broom. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot recall if he specifically mentions the thought experiment by name - if he does, I agree we should link to it, but if it's implied it's the same, that's a bit on the trainspotting side. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but no, he does not mention it by name, he describes the paradox in terms of the broom. I think it would fit well in a description of the cyborgs outside of the plot. For what it is worth, this is unambiguous; there is no other paradox this could refer to here, and he takes us through the simplest description of the paradox, premise to conclusion; plus, it is obvious that he ship paradox is used deliberately in the context of the SS Marie Antoinette. Finally, the reliable sources support the reference. Writer Franklin Harris makes the paradox very clear and puts the reference in context of the entire episode, which fits perfectly in the discussion of the Doctor's identity. I think it's very clear the reference to the Ship of Theseus paradox was deliberate. From a thematic and character perspective, it's important enough to add.[2] Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is where we should be careful, without knowing the writing/directing intent. We can certainly mention in a reception or themes section that one reviewer saw the thematic similarities to the Theseus paradox, but we do not know if that was an intentional one. (Knowing Moffet, yes it pretty well was likely, he is no slouch when it comes to these types of things, but that's my inner voice speaking and not the way we can include it in the plot section. If Moffet & co. later clarified that that was part of the inspiration for the script, then we easily can sneak that into the plot, sourcing them. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it doesn't belong in the plot section. And considering its direct connection to the theme of identity, it should be very easy to source. Viriditas (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madame de Pompadour

Surely, in The Girl in the Fireplace, the Doctor did not know the name of the ship. -- Beardo (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human parts

Wasn't the purpose of the restaurant to obtain parts for all of the cyborgs? There was much evidence of skinned humans. I don't think that the cyborg was "trying to make itself human by replacing its mechanical parts with biological ones taken from spontaneous combustion victims" at all, it was trying to repair itself. Although spontaneous combustion was a good way of disposing of the left overs.125.237.105.102 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

The "scene in which Madame Vastra and Jenny Flint exchange a kiss" may well have been controversial, but it did not "received controversy from viewers". That is very bad English. "was controversial" would be a more direct and correct expression.125.237.105.102 (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep Breath (Doctor Who). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727233412/http://www.doctorwho.tv/watch/cinema to http://www.doctorwho.tv/watch/cinema

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) 22:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/deep-breath-uk-ratings-65855.htm

[1]