Talk:Derren Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mention in Dr Who?[edit]

In the 50th Dr special "Day of the Doctor" the members of UNIT mention explaining away something the Dr does as "Derren Brown" and it's implied they've used him as cover for alien activity in the past. Would this be appropriate to add to a "pop culture" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLEPhoto (talkcontribs) 04:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't usually like to do this since I'm still quite new and don't really have much authority here, but it doesn't seem like anyone else is going to answer your question.

I found this link about "In popular culture" sections. It says this:

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
2. Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?
3. Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?

For #1, Derren Brown did tweet about it (I'm not quite sure how to link to just one tweet but the page is here - scroll down to 27 Nov).

For #2, a quick Google search along the lines of "Derren Brown Doctor Who" leads to several relevant articles including:

Personally, I think you should go ahead and add it. Would anyone else like to weigh in?

And on a related point, if a "pop culture"-style section is going to be made, would there be anything else anyone would like to add? Just one quick mention in a Doctor Who episode might make the section seem a bit sparse. Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As it stands I think this qualifies as trivia. It's a passing joke reference in a TV fiction. Not that significant to either the life or career of Brown. If we were to add this then we may as well start a list of other joke references to Brown, which would all be trivia. You'll note that the essay you linked to explains that "In Popular Culture" sections should be about the article subject's impact on popular culture. It is not just an excuse to list meaningless trivia about when and where they have been mentioned elsewhere. So if you want to add this, it would be great if you started out the section on that basis. What has Brown's impact been on popular culture? Is he often mentioned in relation to magic/the unexplained? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the relevant threshold being "IMPACT on popular culture," I'll note that someone else added his brief appearance in the third season opener of "Sherlock" in basically the same capacity his name was used in the Dr. Who episode, which is to explain an impossible trick or occurrence. If this also is happening in other BBC shows then clearly it's a cultural impact issue. JamesG5 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Did Derren Brown actually appear in Dr Who? As I understand it he didn't, where he actually did appear in Sherlock, so it's not the same at all. --AussieLegend () 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No, he didn't appear in Dr. Who. But that's not my point, I wasn't saying the mention there plus the Sherlock cameo would be enough. I'm saying if he becomes the "go to" name for any BBC show any time they need to explain something bizarre then that would show relevant impact on pop culture. I am in the US, so I get limited exposure to BBC programming, I posted that as a "is this happening?" query.  :-) JamesG5 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Although potentially trivial, Derren Brown's appearance (and yes, an appearance, not just a mention) on 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Deal or No Deal was deemed significant enough to be documented on the 8 Out of 10 Cats page. I don't know how much of a part Derren Brown played in Sherlock, but it could potentially be something to mention if we are making a proper "Impact on Popular Culture" section. (The best video of Derren Brown's appearance I could find was this video, unless you want to watch it on 4oD - if I remember correctly, it's right at the start. He also appeared in the advert for the episode, although I can't seem to find a video of that at all.) Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"Mentioned briefly in the Dr. who 50th anniversary special, The Day of the Doctor, as a cover for the blatant flying of a police box over London. Mulkern, Patrick (24 November 2013). "A Day in the life of Doctor Who: A 50th anniversary review". Radio Times. Retrieved 17 January 2014. " (with reference tags around the citation) - This text was removed by AussieLegend from the "Other Appearances" section on the grounds that "A "mention" is not an "appearance"." The way I see it, the section title could be changed ("Impact on Popular Culture" or something along those lines), or the content could remain removed. But it's a fairly large impact (sure, it's just a minor reference, but it was from a massively important episode broadcast live in 94 countries), and it's sourced, so I would personally recommend that it stayed. Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A mere mention is non-notable trivia. Perhaps a filmography table would be more appropriate. --AussieLegend () 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings either way but just wanted to apologies for not checking this page before accepting that edit, I should have done. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Auto-users only can edit?[edit]

If I read this right, Brown's page is auto-protected since 2013? Can we please get this removed?Sgerbic (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The article has pending changes protection due to multiple BLP violations. Anyone can edit the page but edits by IPs or registered accounts who are not autoconfirmed need to be approved by a reviewer. I don't see any reason why this should be removed. --AussieLegend () 15:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
For the same reason that we don't apply pending changes to all articles. The burden of proof is on those asserting PC should be used, because the default for a page is "anyone can edit". But moving away from hypotheticals, in the past year I count 3 cases of obvious vandalism, 8 edits by a single user attempting to add gossip into the article, 3 or 4 more unconstructive and possibly poor-intentioned changes and one quick self-revert. I don't know what the standard level of vandalism needed to justify PC is, or whether the silver lock deters any vandals from making poor edits, but IMO roughly one problem edit a month doesn't merit protection. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)