Talk:Midnight (Doctor Who)

Xtonic?

Is there any particular reason why "xtontic" (as in, the radiation) is spelled this way, and not with a E? Was it ever written down in the episode, or are we just guessing with the spelling? Assuming the latter, do you think we could change it so that it reads extonic? It's far more aesthetically pleasing this way, and looks much less "made up." Achtungalison (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It was spelled 'xtonic' (or 'Xtonic') on the professor's slide presentation. It's been changed in this article to 'extonic'. I'll change it back. Klippa (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, my mistake. I just re-watched the episode, and noticed the slide. Thanks for changing it back. Achtungalison (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Might even be a pun. The greek word 'Chthonic' is spelled with an X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

rtaprilfoolsday

The ref name says "rtaprilfoolsday". is this vandalism? I don't understand. General Staal (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre choose it when citing Doctor Who Magazine... and it happened to be April 1st... No vandalism, but the name allused me as well. — Edokter • Talk • 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

I've noticed the synopsis for this episode repeats itself - my guess is that more than one person has tried to edit the page without reading what went before. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to edit it, but can someone please change this to suit some form of proper guideline?

Pianoabuser (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It'll be padded out after broadcast anyway. Digifiend (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor Hobbs/Hobbes

There are instances of both spellings in various dr who articles, i only noticed because the Hobbes spelling was used in a tv guide and i looked up the actor (David Troughton) and it shows the Hobbs spelling there. Is there any canon to cite (script for the episode) or was the name never written down ?

PS i dont like/care about dr who so i wont be fixing this but i thought someone might want to. I'm not usually given to such impish behaviour, being a dragon myself. Machete97 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode credits should solve this, we just have to wait for it to air. Digifiend (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the BBC programme information, it is Hobbes. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

TARDIS

Is it worth noting that this is the first episode not to feature the TARDIS, either in the episode or the following trailer? - Weebiloobil (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's probably happened before. Jammy (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's the first time not in the New Series, but the Classic Series is still a bit hazy for me. Hmm - Weebiloobil (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's because the Tardis was used for filming in the next episode as two episodes were being filmed at the same time. Jammy (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It happened in the classic series (Genesis of the Daleks) 86.154.185.86 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets a mention in Genesis; although other crap exists, I'm going to be bold and add it anyway - Weebiloobil (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The BBC fact file confirms that it's the first time since Genesis 86.154.185.86 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a reference? - Weebiloobil (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See [1] 86.154.185.86 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Song

Were I more of an anorak I'd've identified that Eurovision song =)

It wasn't a Eurovision song, it was the 1978 hit "Do It Do It Again" by Raffaella Carrà. -88.109.48.161 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, if I were more of an anorak I'd've known that too doktorb _words^deeds 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be remembering incorrectly, but was pop music also referred to as classical Earth music in The End of the World (Doctor Who)? Is something as trivial as this worth mentioning in the Continuity section? Jrmh (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was called "classical" in "The End of the World" but in "Midnight" wasn't it referred to as "classic" rather than "classical"? (Somebody will be rushing to their DVD-R of "Midnight" to check, I'm sure!) - 79.71.208.195 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Since this has been fleshed out post-broadcast, it seems good enough for Start-class to me. Any disagreements? KermMartian (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Song inclusion: Moonlight Sonata

I'm sure that over the closing scenes of this episode they had Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata playing in the background, possible as a reference to the title of the episode/idea of Midnight as a planet what with the intense light - can anyone confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterspell (talk • contribs) 10:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't hear it or anything like it. I think you're hearing things ;) Cliffhanger407 14:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a piano reprise that sounds similar to Moonlight Sonata (dark, moody, sombre music) but it's not the Sonata itself. Just watched that part myself to make sure :P 124.148.92.245 (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Rose Tyler, speaking backwards, saying "freddie is the devil, freddie is the devil." lol :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it...Anime No Kyouran 11:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anime No Kyouran (talk • contribs)

Sorry, it was a joke. I keep forgetting that not everyone knows about backwards masking as it pertains to Robin Williams' stand-up comedy. My apologies for adding esoteric levity. I will use a fart joke next time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Leisure Planets

This is not the first time the Doctor has gone on holiday to a leisure planet. The fourth Doctor went to The Leisure Hive. Are there any other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmh (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a planet as such, but he did go on a tour in Delta and the Bannermen and he did go to the pool (or try to) in Paradise Towers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

Is there a reason why these pages never seem to link to the episodes themselves on YouTube? --Robinson weijman (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, policy forbids us to link to external copyright viaolations. And episodes on YouTube are almost always uploaded without the copyright holder's content. — Edokter • Talk • 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC upload the episode trailers themselves so it's not against copyright. [2] Jammy (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In which case it is only accebbable for UK residents anyway, so a link would be useless. — Edokter • Talk • 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise YouTube was regionalised. Even if it is I would still imagine that would be quite useful. It doesn't seem to go against WP:EL's rules. Articles about films, for example, have many official links to sites which broadcast the relevant film trailer. Surely this is the same thing? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Edokter are you sure about that, when the BBC introduced the iplayer, they wanted no DRM or region specific restrictions, however it was felt in giving things away for free, it may disadvantage commercial stations. I had thought iplayer was for the restricted stuff and you tube was unrestricted (I could be wrong) 13:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say if the BBC has put it on youtube, it's fair game. U-Mos (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Holland, and I cannot acces iPlayer content, or any YouTube material uploaded by the BBC. In both cases I get the message that the content is not available in my region. Such links are utterly useless and pretty frustrating, as Wikipedia is a world-wide resource. — Edokter • Talk • 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that seems conclusive, thanks Edokter Fasach Nua (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the following is stated on the BBC channel's homepage: "Because of the way that the BBC is funded in the UK through the licence fee, we cannot make videos available outside of the UK. The http://www.youtube.com/BBCWorldwide channel is run by our commercial subsidiary, BBC Worldwide, so does contain BBC videos that are available across the world." _TalkIslander 14:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I've checked that channel months ago, it does not contain any new Doctor Who trailers so is useless. Jammy (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"BBC Worldwide" is a different YouTube account then "BBC", which they use to host the Doctor Who content. — Edokter • Talk • 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - stuff that cannot be accessible outside the UK (i.e. license fee stuff, like the Doctor Who trailers) is uploaded to the BBC account. Everything that can be shown outside the UK is placed on the BBCWorldwide account, thus I should think links on Wikipedia to videos on the BBCWorldwide account would be oK, but yes, that's irrelevant here. _TalkIslander 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that the BBC can make videos available to UK residents only? But if a UK resident (for example) takes that same video and uploads it to YouTube, anyone can view it? But that is illegal, and therefore cannot be linked from Wikipedia? Is that correct? Robinson weijman (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. They choose to do so because DW and all other BBC productions are paid by the UK public and the BBC wants to be able to sell it to other countries. An UK resident is allowed to view it but like everywhere else, he/she is not allowed to share it without the copyright holder's permission. And we know, that the BBC does not give one. SoWhy 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks all for the info. Seems mad - especially since people in Holland (like myself) can view Doctor Who legally on the BBC - but not over the internet! Robinson weijman (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I see no point in an encyclopedia gathering a ragbag of newspaper reviews. They are all archived and are a response to, not part of, the subject under discussion. Any choice of which to quote is tweely arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanconnor (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity item

The Doctor also displays his habit of saying "don't do that" when his assumed accent is imitated by his companion (first seen in "Tooth and Claw") at the conclusion of this episode.

I don't think this is the reason he says "don't do that" -- it's more like Donna is reminding him of Sky and the way she repeated his words, which he doesn't want to go over. What do other people think? JustThisGuy (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the way I saw it (and I initially wrote this paragraph) was this: she copies the accent and he immediately says "don't do that", as he has done three times previously. Then of course, the "no really, don't" gives it a more serious tone and nods to Donna reminding him of Sky. So, I felt, the initial re-use of the phrase shows continuity in the Tenth Doctor's choice of lexis (especially as it's said in the same tone). U-Mos (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, to claim it relates to his accent concern needs a source. No one is around and he just dealt with the repeating alien. It's far more likely he just doesn't want to think about it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This has now returned in the following form:

When Donna imitates the Doctor in Italian, repeating his line "molto bene", he cautions her not to do this, echoing what he has said before when Rose Tyler attempted a Scottish accent in "Tooth and Claw" and Martha Jones when she attempted to speak in Shakespearian English in "The Shakespeare Code". However he also says this because it pains him to think of someone copying him, as Sky did on the bus.

To me the second sentence completely undermines the first. Plus it's unsourced. I don't think it should be included. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Without the second sentence, it's worth considering. But not with the second sentence. U-Mos (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is stretching it a bit - I !vote remove that passage. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already been removed, actually. As this is quite a stretch, there would have to be a strong consensus for it if it were to be included. And there certainly isn't one of them right now. U-Mos (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This bit is a statement of fact, and I believe, relevant. Why would we ignore an obvious reference to previous episodes in this case? I would simply write:

When Donna imitates the Doctor in Italian, repeating his line "molto bene", he cautions her not to do this, echoing what he has said before when Rose Tyler attempted a Scottish accent in "Tooth and Claw" and Martha Jones when she attempted to speak in Shakespearian English in "The Shakespeare Code".

I would end the sentence there.

69.127.144.253 (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Within context, they're not the same things. Consider that the first is a Scottish accent speaking English and the second is Shakespearean English. The third is Donna imitating what the Doctor said (note that in the first two, Rose and Marth aren't repeating what the Doctor said). So yeah, I agree that it's stretching things a bit. DonQuixote (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The two incidents are quite distinct. Rose was doing a crappy job of imitating a Scottish accent, and was only going to irritate those she was trying to speak to. Donna makes the same mistake in the Unicorn and Wasp episode, trying to speak "posh" English. In this episode, it's obvious to me that Doctor Who (sorry that's what I've called him since 1963) has quite pressing reasons for not wanting to hear anybody repeating his exact words. He is visibly shaken and doesn't want to be reminded of the experience. Is that obvious enough to count as a fact? Since we're debating it, probably not. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added this item again, phrased a bit better. It's definitely the punchline of a running gag that has spanned three companions, and the fact it's used differently this time is what makes it amusing. Mezigue (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Guest stars

Right, since my edits seem to be changed/reverted, I'll start this discussion. I don't think that Rose should be at the top of the list - as the article says, she was on screen for a mere few seconds so really doesn't deserve the top spot. Also, the official listings on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00c4xjk) list her at the bottom. I'm not quite sure how the "actual broadcast" takes precedence over the official website, especially since you can't source the credits from the broadcast, but you can from the official site. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can;t you source credits from the broadcast? It strikes me that in this case that'd be the most reliable source, by far. _TalkIslander 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Credits in the broadcast take precedence. It functions as the primary source, which is not open to interpretation. — Edokter • Talk • 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In english, yes I agree, Rose should be on the bottom as she wasn't exactly important in the episode. Jammy (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Placing Rose anywhere else then the credits in the broadcast is interprative and introduces a point of view. — Edokter • Talk • 15:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The broadcast credits take precedence, despite the fact the official programme information (from the BBC website) has been available for at least a week before the broadcast? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the programme is the primary source, and thus takes precedence over everything - if the website stated that a particular quote would be said, but then the programme showed that said quote was incorrect, would you still state that the website was correct? No. In the same way, credits from the episode are definitive. _TalkIslander 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It just seems unfair (for want of a better word) that she got such a top position for such a small role... ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree - she was in the episode for less than 2 seconds, she doesn't deserve the top credit, and why they gave it to her s beyond me. However, that's my (and your) personal opinion. Glad you understand :). _TalkIslander 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can someone cite wiki guidelines that state that when listing the actors in the credits, we do so in the order of broadcast? I wasn't able to find anything that did so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus we aren't listing all of the credits, only a selection, so I don't see why we should be bound by the broadcast order.Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at the style guide on WikiProject:Doctor Who which says, "Cast lists should adhere to the way that they are listed onscreen". Oh well, I guess that includes order:) Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that might be in flux, as there has been substantial discussion regarding the inclusion of cast and characters in the infobox. Perhaps this conversation should suspend or continue in the Doctor Who wikiproject discussion page. Casre to initiate the process, or would you prefer that I do so? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only way of listing guest stars that isn't open to (mis)interpretation or complaints about whether or not someone has moved their favourite to the top of the list, is to list them alphabetically, either by name of actor or of character? sjwk (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I listed them by actor in alphabetical order and removed the character names from the infobox. To answer the concerns that readers won't know the role the actor played, I've followed virtually every other media article in wiki-en and listed the actor in parentheses in the plot summary when the character they play is mentioned for the the first time. That should bring us in line with all of the other media articles in wikipedia, and makes the article much more encyclopedic and less fan-crufty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

(out) I see no reason why we can't just list them by alphabetical actor name, as that is the first set of data that the user will see when looking at the "guest stars" section. If we do that, then there should be little room for complaint, and it would be obvious if an actor had been moved due to favouritism. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't do that, either. It is certainly more encyclopedic. Let's test it out and see if we can get some encyclopedic feedback pro and con. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, in Heaven's name, would you remove the character-names from the cast? Has it not ocurred to you that plenty of people might come on here thinking, "Oh, I wonder who played X. Oh, bugger, someone's decided to leave that important and encyclopedic info out." I mean, why?! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I think we should keep the character names too, otherwise it's a bit more difficult to track down which character the actor played. I'll restore the character names, but re-order them by actor name. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC) [flipping heck - took some commenting then as I kept getting edit conflicts! ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)]

As Edoktor stated above, the broadcast is the primary source and if the BBC sorts them in a certain way, we should just follow them and not discuss it to death... --SoWhy ^Talk 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the BBC wasn't part of the WikiMedia Foundation, so we do things the encyclopedic way, not the BBC way. Imdb is often a source for cast and crew, but we don't arrange cast members a certain way simply because they do. Lost doesn't list the cast as they appear in credits, eitehr, so there isn;t any real background for including them as they appear in BBC credit rolls.

Also, I corrected the alphabetizing of the cast list, removing the character names fromt he infobox and noting them in parentheses in the plot outline. This conforms with virtually every other media article in Wiki-en. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Imdb is a third-party page, as is Wikipedia. The BBC however is the primary source. If they sort the cast in a certain way, we should keep it, because it is the only way to avoid introducing a point of view of our own. As for the rest of your argument, see WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that other articles or projects do it a certain way, is not important, unless there was a definite guideline or MoS regarding this problem. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Time out

Arcayne, this has gone far enough. You, and only you, seem to be set on changing the style that this project has had consensus over for over a year now. Why are you so insistent on chaging it, just to make it "in line with other projects"? In case you havent'noticed yet; consensus is against you. So I'm asking you, please do not try to force the issue. We are not other projects. — Edokter • Talk • 22:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I impose upon you to focus you efforts on the discussion taking place in the article discussion. Your post appears to have been made whilst discussion was occurring there, and as such, seems a bit disingenuous. You yourself have noted there that consensus can change, so perhaps you shouldn't discount others who share the same sentiment, though in opposition to your current views on this specific subject. See my efforts as an attempt to bring the articles in line with the larger consensus of wiki-en media articles, thereby improving the articles, the wikiproject and the encyclopedia at large (I know, quite a task for a single individual; my big red cape arrives in the post next week ;) ). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Romana

If it's really a possibility that Doctor Who's "friend who left for another universe" is Romana, then the presumption that it's a reference to Rose fails and the reference should be removed. Adding the proviso that it could be a reference to Romana dilutes the focus and is not helpful. If we're only sure that Rose is mentioned once (when he mentions her by name) then we should only mention that. The "friend who left for another universe" could be dealt with on its own, by remarking on the fate of both Romana and Rose. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that it's Rose who's being referred to. But if we can't source it I guess it should go.Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are uncertain whether it refers to Rose or Romana (or both), then it probably needs re-wording to illustrate that, or removed entirely (unless it could be accurately sourced that that is what the Doctor meant). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If in doubt leave it out. Per WP:CRYSTAL = ) --Cameron (T|C) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. There is clear doubt here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to doubt. Romana has not been referenced in the new series thus far and there is no reason one could think it was about her. On the other hand, the fact that Rose is in a different universe has been referenced to multiple times. --SoWhy ^Talk 07:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think basic common sense means it's Rose. As we all know, I'm sure! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure common sense is a verifiable or reliable property :P. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that the Doctor refers to Rose by name later on, it is quite clear imho. Noone who knows only the revived series would ever suspect it to reference a character not seen nor mentioned before. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this reference even notable enough to include? To me, it looks too much like fancruft... and I'm a fan! — Edokter • Talk • 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is notable in the sentence I'd say, as another example how the Doctor references to Rose in this episode. Fancruft would be speculation like it was before, that it could reference to Romana maybe. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's speculative; we are not allowed to draw a connection without citation, as it advances a point (ie, that the person he is talking about is Rose). - 216.80.66.205 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. It's like saying we need a citation for "2" when we otherwise talk about "1+1". It's the same thing just phrased otherwise. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Isn't the current infobox picture pretty much giving away the ending? I know we have plot spoilers in the main text of the article, but someone who doesn't want to know the outcome of the episode before they've seen it would obviously steer clear of this information. It's hard to do that when the scene itself is clearly shown at the top of the article. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the previous picture, to be honest. I have to agree that the new picture does sort of give away the ending for someone who hasn't seen it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't hide spoilers; the text gives it away anyway. The Doctor and Sky staring to each other wouldn't meet NFC. — Edokter • Talk • 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You simply don't read the plot if you don't want a spoiler, I wanted to find out this Saturdays episode basic information last Saturday, I didn't want a spoiler so I didn't read the plot, but if the picture is a spoiler then it should be changed as it's unavoidable to look at. Jammy (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spoiler. I really don't think we should let such considerations affect our choice of illustration. There are plenty of fan sites that have rules on spoilers, so Wikipedia isn't the only place to go to. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Classic SF

Sorry about this. Nothing to do with the article. I've thought about this episode for nearly a week in a very eventful life, and what I find most extraordinary about it is that, following an unapologetically superb two-episode blockbuster from the great writer, Steven Moffat, this episode set in a tin can surrounded by vacuum managed to become the story that really got under my skin. This was a classic science fiction short story, there was nothing about the situation that required Doctor Who to be Doctor Who--he could be any confident and self-assured person with professional skills lifted out of his normal environment. Steven Moffat wrote a memorable and wonderful story that I will come back to again and again. Russell Davies wrote a story that makes me hope that, when he stops producing the series, he will at least consider writing for it. They're both great writers and I'm so glad they've both written for Doctor Who. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No word yet on Russell's continuing involvement with the spin-offs - I can't see why he can't still write the odd episode if he'll still be around. Guess we should wait for a press release or something. Digifiend (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also a lack of clarity on what will happen to Torchwood. Next year (2009) there will be a five-part Torchwood story broadcast on consecutive days, and for the first time Torchwood will be shown on BBC 1 (it started on the digital-only BBC3 in the first season and switched to BBC2 this year). But none of the announcements about Doctor Who have said whether Russell Davies will cease sharing the Executive Directorship of Torchwood with Julie Gardner. It could be that Torchwood is simply to be shelved after next year, or perhaps they're keeping their options open. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Billie Piper (Rose Tyler) guest credit

I moved this to the bottom of the list. A couple of seconds mouthing silently on a video monitor is barely a "guest star" role. It's basically a trailer, and about as significant as the words "Bad Wolf" scrawled on the TARDIS by a graffiti artist in the first series. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a debate going on about that above. Please participate in the debate before changing. DonQuixote (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See Be bold. If there's a debate, and significant disagreement, it will be reverted. Fine with me. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rosetti Poem

The inclusion of part of this poem shows the latest in a long line of outside references in DW, something that makes the show so characteristic and identifiable across generations. These references, when explicit (which this is), are notable in their episode's articles. U-Mos (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but how is it especially notable? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above. How is it not notable? U-Mos (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, it doesn't work that way. You need to defend why an urguably non-essential bit of information needs to be in the article. In what way does the article fail without it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it does. I've explained why it should be there, you haven't really explained why it shouldn't. U-Mos (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone appreciates your blatant skirting of 3RR. Guidelines are there for a reason, you know. U-Mos (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. As well, maybe you could await the conclusion of discussion so we can find a solution that works best for the article. You added it, it was reverted. Now you can discuss/defend its inclusion, as per WP:BRD.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't add it. Secondly, I made no bold edit. The bold edit here, as Frickative pointed out, was your removing the text. I reverted the bold edit, now we should discuss rather than you re-removing it again and again. I would re-add it now, but for the fact that I have no doubt you would simply remove it again. So, and in response to your question on my talkpage, I would be happy for a third opinion to be sought here to resolve the issue. U-Mos (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I confused two disputes there. But the point stands. U-Mos (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries; it happens. Let me know when you ask for the 3O. :) If I don't talk to you before Monday, have a good weekend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just filing a 3O request. It seems to be the best way to resolve this. U-Mos (talk) 12

26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Whether there or in WP:WHO, just let me know where you decide to file. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The disputed section

Outside references
The episode contains a quote from Christina Rossetti's poem Goblin Market, spoken by Dee Dee in analysis of Sky's condition.

(Copy blockquoted above to aid neutral assessment.) — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

In response to the listing of this discussion at Third Opinion, I have reviewed the edits in question. As I am pretty unfamiliar with the topic, I looked at the style guide in the WikiProject. I have also sampled a few episode articles to look for consensus on the inclusion of this level of detail in episode articles. My sampling did not show many articles to include sections of outside references, while the style guide was silent on the topic.

I don't believe that its inclusion in this article as a seperate section adds anything to the understanding of the subject. I believe that if the mention were incorporated into the Plot section, it could demonstrate more about the situation as it was occuring in the episode. Perhaps a discussion about how to incorporate mentioning the poem into the plot summary would be more appropriate then a new section containing a single reference? Jim Miller (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a shot at incorporating it into the plot section later. Thanks for your assisstance. U-Mos (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::I think the mention is better left to the production section. As it isn't actually attributed in the plot, but rather observed as such by reviewers after the fact, it isn't really a good fit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we cannot include this statement at all, as the source of the citation is of dubious origin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to join me in banging my head against a brick wall? U-Mos (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, U-Mos. I know this is frustrating to you. Here is a posting I made to JimMillerJr's user talk page. I recreate it here, as it explains in detail the problem I have with this:

I was thinking about how best to include the poem reference, so I decided to look at the citation for the poem's inclusion a bit closer. You might want to do so as well, since it appears that anyone can sign up for a TV.com account (I signed up as user BlatantExample in less than three minutes); I almost added a mostly spitballed reference comparing Donna to the Virgin Mary and the Doctor's severed hand being in reality the invisible hand that Adam Smith refers to in The Wealth of Nations. I only didn't because I don't need to vandalize another website to point out its weaknesses here. With respect to U-Mos, we haven't the foggiest as to who added the reference, but I am willing to lay pretty good odds that it wasn't the good folk at BBC - if it had, it would have been a part of the press release, or deserving of a mention in Doctor Who Confidential. As the provenance of the source is debatable, neither it nor the attendant statements can be included.

The source this information was taken from was essentially a user review. While I was prepared to agree to it as a compromise in production, our policies and guidelines don't allow us to use these sorts of sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, then we'll lost the citations. They were only there as extra; the poem's use was literally cited within the episode, and so an external citation is not required. U-Mos (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "Fear Forecast" for the episode on the BBC website here. "Dee Dee recites a poem about Goblin Men." Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even better. U-Mos (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification (American v. British English)

It's mentioned here that a certain point figures in the "series finale."

I understand that British English prefers, e.g., "fourth series" where American English prefers, e.g., "fourth season", but would it be possible to clarify whether this is meant to imply the finale of series four, or a finale that has yet to be written? Samer (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The finale of series four - Journey's End (although it is actually mentioned in the penultimate episode, The Stolen Earth). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Sky married to a woman?

The artcile describes Sky as "recuperating from the end of her marriage". I have only seen the episode once, but didn't Sky refer to her ex as "she" when talking to the Doctor? If so, I think that is notable as the first (?) appearance of a lesbian in Dr Who. Timb66 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it's implied that she's a lesbian, the first appearance of a lesbian couple was in Gridlock. DonQuixote (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the first appearance of a lesbian couple in Doctor Who was in The Stones of Blood.  ;-)

Seriously, though, I don't think that there's anything in the dialogue to confirm or deny that Sky was married. She's clearly just suffered a bad break-up, and her partner was female, but I don't think she ever says "married" or "wife" or any other term that would confirm a marriage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, Stones of Blood. :P

Anyway, now that you mention it, I'll probably rewatch Midnight to see if "marriage" is mentioned at all. (Got it recorded, but I'm waiting for my DVDs). DonQuixote (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just watched this on DVD. The words "married" or "wife" are never used in reference to Sky, but her character is addressed as "Mrs.".Canth1 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Minibus or plane

Are they in a minibus or a plane or what? I can't work it out but I think they are in a minibus.

It's a shuttle bus YeshuaDavid (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Biff Kane or Biff Cane

It's definitely spelled Kane in the closing credits. Most likely a mistake in the production office, but we'd need a citation to overrule the fundamental source. (It might be intentional, a difference in custom in this future/alien society. Male and female spellings differ for instance.) I think what's on the final production trumps whatever's on the shooting script. It's 'Cane' in subtitles on Doctor Who Confidential, but that's even further from the source. Perhaps the 'Radio Times listing might help. (But if we're in the business of correcting what appeared quite clearly on screen then we could start with the title of The Silurians.) But we really need DWM relaying a response from the production office that it's really Cane. Or perhaps the spelling in some official Gary Russell book. Klippa (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations to other media

Salford University did a theatrical adaptation of this episode. Does anyone think that's interesting enough to be noted in the article? https://youtube.com/watch?v=UEsFeRZjPh4 Critterkeeper (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Midnight (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/20081108151337/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&RequestTimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://radiotimes.com/blogs/338-doctor-who-midnight

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) 00:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey! As a thank you for reviewing George Knight (EastEnders), I'll review this article. Expect comments soon. FishLoveHam (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Woww, I did not expect it to get reviewed the same day as nomination. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@FishLoveHam: replied to everything. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This article could use a free image somewhere, but it isn't a requirement.

• Searching again
  • Couldn't find anything

Lead and infobox

 Done

• remove "much more".
• "playing only a minimal role" → remove "only".
• Attribute the quote "companion-lite". I understand citations in the lead isn't required, but it is good practice to use them to support quotes.
• "principally" → reword.
• remove comma after "vehicle".
• "which" → "that".
• remove comma after "inside".
• "feel" → "atmosphere".

Plot

 Done

• "...sapphires- he goes..." → "...sapphires. He goes..."
• remove "briefly".
• remove "which would need some time to arrive".
• "Doctor's" → "Doctor".
• "reach hysterical levels of paranoia" → "become paranoid".

Production

Writing

• The first two paragraphs are rather similar and can be combined.
  • Longer paragraphs are hard to read
    • They aren't hard to read. I would understand if combining would create a wall of text but combining the section wouldn't stand out too much. It looks better now, but I still don't see why the two sentences on the script can't be added to the above paragraph. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • I disagree; the first para is the general idea of a companion-lite episode, the second para is the actual reason and thought process. Also, not to be literal, but first para is 3.5 sentences, being half the size of the second para
• "two-fold" → reword.
  • I do not see a better word than this here
    • "He described the possession and human paranoia as the two threats facing the doctor." ? FishLoveHam (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • He didn't describe it like that, he said longer quotes. An accurate rewording would require too much detail and quoting
        • "two-fold" is doesn't read formally, though. If he said it and you can't think of a replacement then quote it. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • It does read formally, but I reworded it anyway
• "60" → "sixty".  Done
• "Scene 9" → "scene nine".
  • its named as such, so I feel it should be treated like a proper noun
    • I don't know how WP:MOSNUMERAL-friendly that is, but I think it's minor enough to be okay. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "44" → "forty-four".  Done
• "There were many references to the series' ... on a television screen." Remove, not essential in the episode's production and writing.  Done
• Same issue as above, the poem can be removed. Its relevance is minimal.  Done(both had been present for a long time on the article, so I wasn't sure what to do with them)

Casting

• "David Troughton was a late replacement" as what character?  Done(had removed bcs it seemed redundant)
• Maybe mention David Troughton's relation to Patrick Troughton, the rest of the section from "Now known for his stage work ... director of the episode, Alice Troughton." is not needed.
  • removed some, though I kept the info of his connections with the franchise
    • "He has had a long association with the series since the 1960s, appearing as an uncredited extra in the Second Doctor serial The Enemy of the World, as Private Moor in the Second Doctor serial The War Games, and as King Peladon in the Third Doctor serial The Curse of Peladon. He has also appeared in a bunch of Doctor Who audio dramas." Is this about Patrick or David? Needs disambiguated, is this David or Patrick? I also feel like this still contains a lot of uneessary information, especially if this is referring to Patrick.
      • I'll mention it's David, and shorten it again.
        • I won't lie, it still seems a bit off-topic, but I see the justification. However, "a bunch of" is way too informal for Wikipedia. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • Reworded bunch of to "some"
• "The main guest star for the episode was Lesley Sharp" as what character?  Done
• "Davies himself" → "Davies".
  • I think it should be emphasised that the writer himself wanted her cast
    • You get the same effect without the word "himself" while being grammatically correct. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure using himself for emphasis is grammatical
        • I can't see how it is needed, but you seem convinced that it's necessary and it's minor enough to just leave it. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "He was cast in the BBC One series Merlin soon afterwards." unneeded.  Done

Filming

• "Studio 6" → "Studio six".
  • See above for scene 9
    • Okay FishLoveHam (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Remove "Doctor-lite" and "eleven".
  • removed eleven, Doctor-lite is good for context
    • Fair enough FishLoveHam (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Scene 9" → "Scene nine".
  • See above
    • Noted FishLoveHam (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "scenes 9A to 9K" is not understandable to a broad general audience, explain.
  • I need the general audience knows things are filmed in parts?
    • You'd be surprised. Maybe "scene 9 was broken into several sub-scenes"  Done
• "film it in real-time too" reword.  Done

Broadcast and reception

• "This made it one of the highest placed episode ever in the show's history" reword.  Done
  • That wasn't the issue I had, "highest placed episode ever" is pretty clunky. I'd suggest "this made it one of the highest-rated episodes in the show's history". "Rated" shouldn't cause confusion given the context.  Done
• "The episode received an Appreciation Index score of 86 (considered Excellent)." Isn't this reception?
  • Nope, it's a rating given by viewers
    • "The Audience Appreciation Index (AI) is an indicator measured from 0 to 100 of the public's appreciation for a television or radio programme" This is reception as it is how the episode was received by people, it doesn't matter if they aren't critics. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
      • I disagree, plus this is how all/most Doctor Who episode articles, including the GAs, list the Index
        • I don't see how that is considered broadcasting information and not reception when it discusses how the episode was received. It doesn't matter what other articles do. I don't mean to be rude but please tell me how it falls under broadcasting information, move it to reception, or remove the information. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • It's information that is collected by/for the broadcaster. It isn't supposed to be revealed to the public (though it usually leaks out anyway), it's just for the broadcaster's sake. A TRP wouldn't be considered a reception either. It's literally the MOS for Doctor Who articles, how does it not matter that other articles do it?
• Ref 13 is before ref 6
  • 13 is viewer number, 6 is index score, would prefer to keep it sequintal
    • My mistake FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Many reviewers felt that the episode to be tense and claustrophobic, which was praised to be a great atmosphere and making for a great horror episode." Needs altered, "felt" isn't great wording and there are grammar errors. Also, for a topic sentence, it reads as being a bit biased (eg. repetition of "great").  Done (Reworded)
  • Excellent FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• "the scariness of it being unseen" clunky, reword.  Done
• "pyschological" → "psychological".  Done
• "IGN" is italicised in some instances, but not others.  Done
• "Digital Spy" → "Digital Spy"
  • It should be italicised
    • Why? The Digital Spy article doesn't italicise it; it is a website, not a newspaper like Radio Times or The Guardian.
      • It's a news website, even if the news is only about pop culture
        • Pop culture isn't a part of the concern, it shouldn't be italicised as it isn't a published newspaper like the examples mentioned. Per MOS:NAT, a website, even a news-related one, is not considered a Major work of art and artifice, therefore should not be italicised. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
          • You are reading the MOS wrong, here MOS:ITALICWEBCITE- Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized
• The paragraphs are really short, despite all saying somewhat the same thing; combine 2 and 3, and 4 and 5.
  • Merged them differently
    • It looks good! FishLoveHam (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

• Radio Times is not italicised in ref 9.  Done
• Citations are rather inconsistent.  Done
  • Ref 9 hasn't been cited properly. url and archive-url need to be differenciated.
    • What do you mean?
    • Fixed. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 doesn't wikilink Digital Spy and it is differently formatted to ref 17, which uses the same publication.
    • Done (they are formatted the same, the earlier refs has a shorter title)
• These types of sources are commonly removed, I strongly recommend archiving these.  Done

Spot check

• [9] a. Y b. Y
• [11] Y
• [14] Y
• [16] Y
• [19] Y
• [21] Y

Other

Something I forgot to point out, the article is very quote-heavy and that has resulted in Earwig's copyvio reporting over 70% in similarity. Try your best to paraphrase some of these.

It's not plag, someone copied the article. The actual plag is 16% and in green. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you saw this? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: responded. FishLoveHam (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@FishLoveHam: replied. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: replied. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@FishLoveHam: replied. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Progress

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

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.