Talk:The Doctor's Wife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleThe Doctor's Wife 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.
May 30, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Edits[edit]

Please do not remove information that has been shown on screen in 'next time' trailers. Wordforge (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Length[edit]

Putting a note here since the article is being edited at the moment. A while back, I set the length as 50 minutes since that was the broadcast slot. Actually, it's closer to a normal 45 minute episode since it ran at 45:51 (you can check the time on the iPlayer - you need to start the episode playing to get the actual running time). Because of this, the episode length needs to be restored to 45 minutes (and the references removed) once the the big edit currently in progress is done (assuming it doesn't happen as part of that edit). Cheers. Maccy69 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it now. Maccy69 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Timelord with snake mark[edit]

Can somebody find out the name of the timelord with the snake mark? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Do a good turn daily 19:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Corsair is what he was called, I believe. NW (Talk) 19:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, the Corsair. screengrab, with subtitles, from the iPlayer. Maccy69 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Secondary control room screenshot[edit]

Do we need a screenshot of the secondary control room? I think we do! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    To be or not to be? 20:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What does it add to the article? NW (Talk) 20:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I placed it into the infobox and into the TARDIS article but admin Scott Macdonald deleted it. Trying to get a consensus. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 20:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You explained what happened. I'm asking for why you believe an image should be placed in the infobox. NW (Talk) 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe the image should be placed in the infobox because a. that's the location where the "climax" takes place, b. it shows a "secondary" control room, the first time it appears in DW for a long time and thus dw fans would like to know what it looks like --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    To be or not to be? 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
How does that meet NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." NW (Talk) 21:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It meats NFCC #8 because a. its not purely decorative, and b. it adds understanding to the article ie it shows what the second console room looks like. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is that important? NW (Talk) 21:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Because t shows what the second control room looks like. It adds information about the TARDIS. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Shake 'n Bake 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that really isn't enough to meet it. NW (Talk) 21:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That means NONE of DW imgs make the cut. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time!  21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that an image of Idris (whilest she is the tardis) be included as it is the first time (i think) the tardis has been shown in a human form (or has spoken as well). FM talk to me | show contributions ]  21:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think so... but others may not --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Do a good turn daily 21:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say this once and only once, because it's not complicated. Screenshots are allowed only if they would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article. Do readers need to know exactly what the secondary control room looks like in order to appreciate the concept of a secondary control room? Of course not. Do they need a picture of a human to understand what the concept of 'in human form' means? Of course not. And Twy, just a hint: if you keep failing to read and understand the non-free content policy then you will be bordering on disruptive editing. ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In your case NONE of the Doctor images would make the cut! As all can be described in letters... For example, I can describe the Tardis as a big blue police box with a steping triange roof with a flash light on the top but nooo, we have an image of that. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Every little helps! 21:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I can only recommend that you take a look at some valid Doctor Who images (Vincent and the Doctor and Partners in Crime are good examples) to try and get a feel for what's acceptable and what's not. I'm not going to keep trying to explain this to you, because you either cannot or will not understand the very simple criteria which are in use. Next time you add a crappy image, you should expect to find me proposing an editing restriction barring you from uploading non-free content for quite some time. ╟─TreasuryTagquaestor─╢ 21:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
First can we get a consensus about what sort of DW imgs make the cut... Why does this makes the cut File:DoctorWhoTheLodgerUpstairs.jpg over the image of the second control room? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    To be or not to be? 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no intention of getting into a game of 'other shit exists' with you. You're in a minority of one over this issue, so I suggest you just let it go. My warning about your next image upload still stands. ╟─TreasuryTagstannator─╢ 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I will let it go if you drop the NFCC ban. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 22:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. ╟─TreasuryTagcollectorate─╢ 22:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, to be fair, most the of the Doctor Who images don't make the cut after the current fair-use image policy was adopted a few years ago. And in fact, a lot of them were deleted. There are still some that are hanging around, but that's because no one outside the project has noticed those yet and tagged them for deletion. Please, let's not clutter the pages with new images that don't pass NFCC as that just makes the project look bad to the rest of Wikipedia.
As someone mentioned, don't start with a screen-cap and try to fumble around for a fair-use rationale for it. DonQuixote (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Since user Tyw7 wanted a consensus, I thought I might add my voice to firm up the consensus that has emerged here. The proposed image does not add to our understanding of the article and so cannot be used. What is or is not present on other pages is simply not of concern when discussing what should be used here. I'm with TreasuryTag and the rest on this one, I'm afraid. --86.184.248.62 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

can I just point out - the "secondary console room" is Tennant's tardis - so if this WAS used as the image, we could just stick in that rather than upload a near identical picture. Having said that, I don't see how that improves the understanding to THIS article, so that shouldn't be done either. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Secondary console room[edit]

Nowhere does it says that it is an "archieve" of the old one. I just presumed that it just looked like the old one. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

At about 31:07...Idris: "I archived them." DonQuixote (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok. Must have missed it! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
She even archived ones that don't exist yet. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Pull to open[edit]

I've removed the following unreferenced nonsense from the article: "However, 'Pull to open' refers only to the public emergency telephone contained behind one of the doors on an original police box." In Confidential it's actually discussed that the Doctor has always pushed the door open instead of pulling it and over the centuries how irritating that must have been for the TARDIS. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the emergency telephone. Why don't people just listen instead of making "facts" up? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine. ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 14:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In his Q & A on The Guardian's website, Neil Gaiman acknowledges that "Pull to open" "obviously refers to the hatch" and not the door but goes on to assert that the TARDIS/Idris (not being a real police box) takes it as a literal instruction. As for me "making it up", perhaps you could consult the Wiki police box article. It explains quite clearly that they had two uses: an emergency telephone for the public (behind the hatch) and the space within was for officers. If you want to go back a bit, it's also shown being used as such in the classic series, in Logopolis. And if memory serves, the emergency phone also featured in "The Empty Child". Chris 42 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason I originally included it (or modified the first edit) was that it struck me as a major continuity error at the time. As Neil Gaiman felt the need to clarify it among the many questions that were put to him, it seems I wasn't alone. I'm quite amazed the anon dismissed this as "unreferenced nonsense" when a little basic research would show that the sentence is correct — it has everything to do with the emergency telephone. Since it hasn't been reinstated, c'est la vie but it did annoy me that it was removed so arbitrarily and out of ignorance of DW's history. And I'm over it now. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

The Continuity section has been tagged as 'Trivia'. There is no point tagging Doctor Who continuity sections in this way while at the same time having the Doctor Who MOS explicitly endorsing such sections. This is independent of the deletion of elements of such sections that are speculative, poor quality etc.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject MoS doesn't support bullet-pointed lists of miscellaneous factoids as far as I remember, but anyway, WP:TRIVIA takes precedence. ╟─TreasuryTagsenator─╢ 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps the DWMOS should be clarified.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't see anything which is ambiguous (in particular, the text, "if possible, try to limit the extent of these sections by incorporating the text into other sections and limiting inclusion of continuity points to matters discussed by sources, preferably secondary ones," seems to make the situation crystal clear), but if you can, go for it. ╟─TreasuryTagmost serene─╢ 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It is arguable that the Continuity sections are directly relevant to the broader narrative rather than entirely trivial. I don't really have a problem with the DW MoS, but rather with the inconsistent treatment of the articles. It's unclear what the MoS would intend other than a bulletted list—such sections could be turned into weak disconnected prose, but it wouldn't really be an improvement. Obviously, information directly pertinent to the plot should be in that section instead, but that's also not always appropriate, and doing so in all cases would make the Continuity sections redundant, which would require a change to the DW MoS. Therefore, the only thing I would recommend is simply deleting the Trivia tag and just ensuring that the content of the section is suitable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You can't delete the {{trivia}} tag from a section of an article that contravenes WP:TRIVIA. Such an action would be disruptive. If you think that other articles contravene the guideline I just quoted, then that's unfortunate but irrelevant. ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 15:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
1) If consensus agrees that the trivia tag doesn't apply, it can be removed. Tags are not binding elements that must be fixed (otherwise, we'd have problems with rampaging editors tagging things left and right and edit warring to prevent their removal) 2) There is a way to prose-ify the current section, if one considers the number of old-series and Doctor mythos callouts, along with reference other elements. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It is of course completely fine to remove a trivia tag if there is consensus that the guideline is counter-productive in a particular scenario. If the trivia tag were present until all items were removed from the Continuity section, then why would the DW MoS prescribe such a section in the first place?--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The WikiProject MoS advice on continuity sections is as follows (and you should read it, this time): "If possible, try to limit the extent of these sections by incorporating the text into other sections and limiting inclusion of continuity points to matters discussed by sources, preferably secondary ones." ╟─TreasuryTagChief Counting Officer─╢ 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Your condescension became tiresome some time ago. If there are items in the Continuity section that are already in the text of other sections, remove them (and before the predictable retort, this extends to moving such items to other sections where suitable for the context of the other sections). If there are items that are not supported by sources (including primary sources, but preferably secondary sources), remove them. The MoS does not say 'slap a Trivia tag on the Continuity section'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, slapping tags on such articles a day after a major expansion is really is bad form w.r.t. WP:DEADLINE. If a month from now the section was still bad, be my guest, but its clear people are working on this article. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not even clear exactly what is being considered bad, within the context of a comparison of WP:TRIVIA and the DW MoS. There is no established definition of 'trivia' that determines whether any particular aspect of continuity is trivial apart from practical considerations of whether points are notable and relevant (there is clearly a subjective element to this, but it is not difficult to discern between an obvious and deliberate aspect of continuity and something entirely mundane). WP:TRIVIA states that "If [trivia sections] must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." Generally, the purpose of the trivia template is the eventual removal of the 'trivia' section altogether. If the items in the Continuity section are to be considered 'temporary trivia', then it would therefore not be appropriate for the DW MoS to provide for such a section at all. It is therefore not logical to tag the episode Continuity sections as trivia, unless the DW MoS is changed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Masem, thanks for adapting the section. You've brought it together quite nicely. Though nicer to convert from a list to prose, there was never any genuine issue of trivia with the Continuity section per se, so I've removed the template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
We should still try to source what we can in that section. I know reading some of the early reviews that we can address that these points were mentioned by reviewers, even though they are all "obvious" from primary sources. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Doctor != The Corsair[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An IP is trying to assert that the Doctor's comments about the Corsair (who gender-swapped during regens) is referring to himself. I've watched it twice, and its pretty clear the Doctor's referring to a different Time Lord, and not himself here. (He talks about how good that Time Lord was likely in the female versions...) --MASEM (t) 23:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor must be entirely unfamiliar with not only the episode which clearly indicates the Corsair to be a different Time Lord, but also the broader series narrative which clearly doesn't allow for regenerations beyond the 10 we know about.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
But perhaps is aware of the Pertwee-tattoo scene?212.139.75.68 (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't mean anything, why would the Doctor talk about himself in the third-person about getting a tattoo? The dialog in this specific episode clearly has the Doctor talking about a different Time Lord. (Heck, if that was the Doctor, why would Auntie have the arm with the snake tattoo on it?) It's clear the only obvious interpretation from the primary source is the Corsair is a different Time Lord. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth (probably little), the implication is that a tattoo doesn't (necessarily) survive the Time Lord regeneration process. The Corsair apparently had the same tattoo applied on more than one occasion - that much is apparent from the dialogue of the episode. That said, it's pretty obvious that the Corsair and the Doctor are not the same person entity. 94.116.12.113 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

possible image[edit]

Given that we have a source that addresses the design of the makeshift TARDIS as part of a Blue Peter contest (we had the same on Love and Monsters), it would seem that a possible non-free image of the Doctor and Irdis in transit on the makeshift TARDIS would make for a good capture image for the article as it addresses 1) the guest actress (Suranne Jones has been praised for her role in the RS reviews I'm scanning through) 2) the makeshift TARDIS (which, while can be grossily envisioned knowing the old console, but really is easily to state with an image) and 3) one of the late dramatic moments in finale of the episode, meeting NFCC#8 to some subjective degree. I won't upload until there's consensus that this would be appropriate here. --MASEM (t)

Seems reasonable to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You folks are doing it again – this really doesn't work if you try to think of a possible image to include and then attempt to shoehorn it into the article. What should happen is that you read something written in the article, think, "Hmm – readers really aren't going to get this without a picture," and then upload one.
I disagree that readers' understanding of the topic would be harmed if they didn't see a picture of the makeshift TARDIS: it could be described in words to an adequate extent. Sure, it wouldn't enable people to visualise it 100% perfectly, but they don't need to if their only interest is comprehending the plot. Something like, "...composed of a glowing TARDIS console, protected by TARDIS walls on two sides but open on the others..." seems more than sufficient. People only need to know that it's makeshift, cobbled together, and partially open IMO. ╟─TreasuryTagActing Returning Officer─╢ 08:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This image would not be there just to illustrate the plot; If you have watched Confidenial, the production team went to great lengths in creating the makeshift console, and they even showed the winner's drawing from the Blue Peter contest (which would also be a good illustration in the production section). Edokter (talk) — 11:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I watched Confidential. So they went to great lengths in creating the console. They go to great lengths in designing everything, be it the planet, the costumes, the TARDIS corridors or the spooky green light. The there is no NFCC 11 which says that images are allowed if a lot of effort was put into making them. At the moment, the design of the makeshift ship is not subject to significant critical commentary (there's a throwaway sentence which focuses on the competition itself rather than on the aesthetics) and the topic of this article is the episode, not the design of individual aspects of it. I really don't think that not seeing a graphic of the makeshift TARDIS would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic. ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 12:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. Frankly, your limited view regarding the scope of this article worries me ("the topic of this article is the episode"). The episode entails every aspect, inlcuding production and it's detals. So if you truly believe the production aspects are not topical, or shouldn't be, then I believe you are of no further use to this project. Edokter (talk) — 12:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe you are of no further use to this project – why do you spout such non-constructive inflammatory bollocks? ╟─TreasuryTagLord Speaker─╢ 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
But remember, I said there were multiple purposes. The makeshift TARDIS is one, which while only addressed by the contest results comment can be expanded to how the production team constructed it. A second point is to show Idris, who, while presently not discussed because the reviews haven't been added, has been commented by these reviews highly favorably in coupling her with the Doctor. Now, I know that last week's Black Spot that we had a free images of the actress playing the siren, and that the extrapolation from actress in the raw, to speak, to the costumed siren is pretty straightforward, and the same could be said here (from Jones to Irdis), but again, the sources speak of her and her chemistry with Matt Smith/Doctor, and this would be a way to capture that as well. At the same time, as a more recent example, I could speak the same of the need for the image on Vincent and the Doctor (Curran even out of makeup can easily been seen to look like van Gogh), despite his performance being critically praised.
I mean, ultimately, the argument you are coming to, "everything can be described with words", while at some point true, effectively can prevent any non-free image from being used. Instead, we have to balance how many words it takes to summarize what a image that would only be available in a non-free image would look like, with actually using the non-free image itself as part of NFCC#8 evaluation. Consider the two parts of #8: does the image contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the article? after being told that the makeshift console was a design based on a Blue Peter winner? Certainly yes, moreso than just the words "...composed of a glowing TARDIS console, protected by TARDIS walls on two sides but open on the others...". does it's omission detrimental to that understanding - this is a point of contention, but by the same logic that this was a child's idea behind the actual prop and the rigorousness production went to recreate it, a text statement of what it looks like does not capture the chaotic and throwback nature of it. The important thing - unlike the images from the last three episodes that have been objected to - is that this is not purely decorative nor just an interesting shot from the episode in question to fill the infobox. There is rhyme and reason to select one of these inflight scenes to meet three different purposes with one single image. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added what I think is the best non-blurry shot of the two of them together with the makeshift TARDIS that shows off Smith, Jones, and the console pretty clearly. Yes, there needs to be reception to make this better, but we know it exists, just a matter adding in said reviews. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I've not strong opinion one way or the other on the presence of the image and don't want to get involved in that debate, but the caption used was a little confusing and verbose. I condensed it for the sake of clarity just in case the image does remain. --86.184.248.62 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OR in the continuity section[edit]

Twice in the continuity section the states "The Doctor alludes", then linking something with a previous episode. Yesterday I tagged these sentences with {{fact}} tags and they appear to have gone. I see only primary sources mentioned in this section; these need to be treated with care, only describing what you see and hear. If the Doctor as said something, that's fine, but linking something with a previous episode without a reliable source is original research. Also, do we have a source that Nephew's eyes are green because he is possessed by House? Edgepedia (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  • It's indicated by the fact when House takes over the TARDIS shell, it glows green. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Chameleon circuit[edit]

"Idris also mentions that the TARDIS has been stuck in the shape of the police box due to the broken chameleon circuit for nearly the same length of time"... a brief flick through the episode on iPlayer didn't show this mention. It does ring a bell with me, but I perhaps think it may be in a scene shown on the Blue Peter report/web exclusive that didn't make it into the final episode. (Neil Gaiman mentions on the Doctor Who site a "TARDIS graveyard" scene, where the TARDISes initially appeared as everyday objects before Idris turns off the chameleon circuits). Can anoyone confirm this? U-Mos (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not mentioned directly, but in the scene where the Doctor is pulling a panel in the graveyard, he and Idris talk about "for the last 700 years" how the Doctor's been pushing instead of "pull to open" on the sign on the police box. The circuit itself is not mentioned, but does assert that the police box look has been that way for 700 years. We know this is obviously from the broken chameleon circuit by general knowledge of the Doctor mythos, but its not mentioned by name. This could possibly be rewritten in the article. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean there, and agree it does need a re-wording. I'm going to clear up that section now as it's a bit messy in general. U-Mos (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Susannah[edit]

Just thought I'd check, any reason why we're not naming the girl who won the Blue Peter competition and designed the junkyard TARDIS? U-Mos (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If she's named via an RS, that's completely appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This has become more awkward than I expected. There's this RS, as well as the Blue Peter episode from May 10th itself, which name Susannah, but the only references I can find including her surname (Leah) are more dubious, ie. [1] [2] [3]. Are any of those citable? It does look very odd to refer to her as only "a British schoolgirl" as currently. Additionally I have just found this from Susannah's local rag, perhaps that would be preferable? U-Mos (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The Todmorden newspaper seems ok. It is not like, say, the Star Wars Kid who you can find his name if you search a bit deeper and put two and two together; here the girl (with parents) seems pleased to be where she is. If the only sites were the blog-like ones who might have been a bit more nosy, I'd agree that only the first name is merited but here's a case where it's valid. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Dropping this [4] as the Blue Peter segment details (who selected the design, how it was, etc.) should be included in the article (this is to help support the use of the infobox image). I will try to do it later today if no one else gets a chance. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Idris not in the episode beyond the teaser[edit]

I've done a few revisions on this point, but more likely needs to be done. This is not OR or supposition, but cold fact stated on screen and canon: from the moment the TARDIS' "soul" enters her mouth, the character of Idris does not exist. It is the TARDIS (or, if you accept the fact the episode establishes this as her name no less than three times, "Sexy"). I know it gets a bit confusing because there are also references to the TARDIS ship itself. But the fact remains the character who interacts with the Doctor should not be called Idris, but is the TARDIS. So I've made some corrections, but I probably missed others. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The character is credited as Idris, and called such in all promotional material, so that's the name we use. U-Mos (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Further sources to use[edit]

From this specific search, I was able to find quite a few sources and reviews of the episode. Some examples being this, this, this, and this as only a few examples. Should be able to shore up a lot of the article with all of them. SilverserenC 10:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

Does anyone else think it's worth mentioning that the conversation between the Doctor and Idris about how she never took him where he wanted to go but always to where he needed to be was a reference to Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.149.137 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(Please add new comments to the bottom of the talk page, thanks). Unfortunately, that's a non-obvious connect that will require a secondary source to link. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


a general proofreading[edit]

First, my credentials to write this. I am Steven Manfred, and I've been Neil Gaiman's personal walking Doctor Who Encyclopedia for several years, including all the years he was working on the writing of this episode. He says so in two posts on his blog, here: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2011/06/fairly-humongous-doctor-who-q-mostly.html and earlier, here: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2011/05/adventures-in-screen-trade.html My email is smanfred@comcast.net if anyone wishes to further verify me.

I'm going to do a general proofreading of the entire article here and suggest corrections that someone more expert at editing wikipedia (and getting the edits to stick and not get reversed) than I am can do.

Under "Synopsis":

- It says Uncle and Auntie lock up Idris, but really they send Nephew to do it.

- It uses the term "hypercube" to describe the Time Lord distress signal message boxes, but never has that term been used to describe them in the TV series, nor was it in the script.

- House is able to possess other people and technology around it... interface suggests a more symbiotic relationship, which it isn't. He's a parasite.

- It refers to "the secondary control room" as though it's the only one, when it's just one of about 30. "a secondary control room" would be better.

Under "Continuity":

- The Doctor and the TARDIS' companionship is stated to have been for 700 years. This figure derives from dialogue in the classic series stories The Ribos Operation (where the recently-briefed Romana gives the Doctor's age as 759) and The Pirate Planet (where Romana states the Doctor has been operating this TARDIS for 523 years). Subtracting the two therefore reveals the Doctor and the TARDIS stole each other when he was 236. The Eleventh Doctor has most recently given his own age as 909 (in The Impossible Astronaut). If we assume that to be correct, then they've been together for 673 years, which rounded to the nearest hundred is the 700 years given here in this story.

- The TARDIS taking the Doctor to where he needs to go not only explains how he so often misses his target destinations but also why there always seems to be some dramatic trouble that he needs to solve wherever they end up. It's not just a coincidence.

- The TARDIS being described as "alive" goes back at least as far as the Jon Pertwee story "The Time Monster," but even before that, right back at story three, "The Edge of Destruction," we learn that it is a machine that can think for itself as it tries to give the crew warnings in creative, if cryptic, ways.

- Not only is the TARDIS console flight sequence an allusion to the similar flight in "Inferno," but the sound effects from that "Inferno" flight have been reused in the scenes here.

- The older control room seen here was indeed used by the Ninth and Tenth Doctors, but technically, also briefly by the Eleventh Doctor in "The End of Time" and "The Eleventh Hour."

Under "Writing":

- The episode was originally titled "The House of Nothing" while in outline form in 2008. The first draft script in early 2009 was titled "Bigger On The Inside," and that title remained until March of 2011 when it became "The Doctor's Wife."

- There are other previous stories that centered on the TARDIS itself (or gave it this much screen time at least), so that line is perhaps best deleted. ("The Edge of Destruction," and the first halves of "Logopolis" and "Castrovalva," amongst others.)

- Although Neil did indeed ask that in casting Idris she be someone "odd, beautiful, strange-looking, and quite funny," he didn't name Suranne Jones. The usual production team collaborative casting process selected her.

- He did, however, specifically suggest Michael Sheen for the voice of House, and asked Sheen himself if he'd be up for it, which he was.

Under "Filming":

- Filming for this episode started on 22 September 2010 and ended on or about 10 October 2010, not in August as the article states.

- 'Gaiman had wanted to reconstruct a console room from the original series...' isn't precise enough. His earliest drafts called for an old control room, but this was written before it was known that a new room would be introduced alongside the new Doctor, and once that was confirmed, Gaiman requested that the old Eccleston/Tennant one be retained for use in his episode instead of making a recreation, which is what happened.

- That older set was retained throughout series five specifically for use in this episode, as it was thought it would shoot in the final series five block. Using it in the teaser of "The Eleventh Hour" was a later idea, and was recorded well after the rest of "The Eleventh Hour" had been completed.

I think that's about everything.

Best, Steven Manfred "invincor" Invincor (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

...bearing in mind that you need a cite-able reliable source rather than your own assertions and memory, of course. ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Tweet from Neil Gaiman / possibly related to earlier post here[edit]

Neil Gaiman just tweeted this: [5]: Dear Wikipedia, why are you certain that The Doctor's Wife was shot in August, when I blogged about being on set at the end of September?. Now, given how close this was to this comment on this talk page [6], I have a feeling we need to be listening to our primary sources here.

For what Neil's saying, the article is a forward-looking one and thus the August date was anticipated, but not correct. I know we have to have sources to back it up, but as Neil saying, he can confirm through his blog on the filming dates. Similarily with other information they provide. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's another source suggesting later than August - http://www.doctorwholocations.net/stories/doctorswife records filming for this episode on 27th to 29th of September. I don't think a planned date for filming months before should take precedence over actual reports of filming. - Canterbury359 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canterbury359 (talkcontribs) 06:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cemex, Taff Wells (27-29 Sept 2010) were some of the location filming for this episode according to http://chart.doctorwhospoilers.com/ with links to the photos at http://www.doctorwholocations.net/. Neil Gaiman blog entry of September 29, 2010 at http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010_09_01_archive.html seems to confirm this. This new information should be used to update the wiki. 208.196.60.102 (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Taras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.196.60.102 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional info at http://doctorwhospoilers.com/2011/669 suggesting that "that filming for Series Six begins on Monday 6th September" http://doctorwhospoilers.com/2011/1087 suggests that Gaiman's episode will start filming after Sept. 21, 2010. http://doctorwhospoilers.com/2011/1147 http://www.flickr.com/photos/54169297@N04/sets/72157625045635118/with/5030207534/ http://twitter.com/rclarkie/status/25710571470 seem to corroborate above. http://doctorwhospoilers.com/2011/1111 summary of director's tweets. 208.196.60.102 (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Taras

Self-published sources are unacceptable. ╟─TreasuryTagCounsellor of State─╢ 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That's oversimplistic -- it depends on the source, and how we're using it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
What about this: "The episode was scheduled to film in August 2010 (ref), although Gaiman blogged about visiting the set at the end of September (ref of his blog post)." Glimmer721 talk 16:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Doctor who ..?[edit]

Has NOBODY noticed that when The Doctor fixes Nephew, the voice we can clearly hear is that of The Doctor himself, in his eighth incarnation? It's pretty significant that this is the first time Paul McGann's Doctor has appeared in this form in the new series; how come it is not mentioned in the article? Fergananim (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently nobody has, that's why we can't cite anyone. DonQuixote (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
There are lots and lots of people who heard that sound bite and immediately though it was Paul McGann. Many of those people were discussing this over on Gallifrey Base, Digital Spy and YouTube. There was a whole lot of fuss around this, but as the BBC never came forward and outright told us which actor voiced the sound bite, nobody really knows who it was. I doubt those original threads still exist (we're talking about a year back now), Gallifrey Base's discussions can't be linked to as it's not an 'open' forum, YouTube clips probably exist... but in reality we're talking about a fan-theory that's come about mainly due to folks who have been craving for McGann's return since 2005, leaping on every tiny snippet of detail that could potentially keep their hopes alive. We can't really mention all the fan theories that exist about Doctor Who on Wikipedia because we'd need a Wikipedia just to keep track of them all, and the vast majority end up either unproven or utterly false. Wasn't Omega supposed to teleport into David Tennant's TARDIS at one point? There was even a fan theory that The Corsair is supposed to be Dave Lister from Red Dwarf because of his Ouroboros tattoo - you see where I'm going with this? Pobatti (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just been on YouTube and it took me all of 10 seconds to find this video which contains the sound bite that speculates that it could be Paul McGann's 8th Doctor. It sounds eerily like him, but as I pointed out above there's simply no way to know for sure. We could always put something in the 'trivia' section about this - but the danger is that it will invite torrents of other fan theories which could end up harming the factual accuracy of the articles as well as making the pages much longer and unwieldy than they really need to be. Pobatti (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested. NW (Talk) 01:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


– Surely a stub article that lacks any direct sources on an apparently very minor novel cannot be the primary topic over a carefully wirtten and thoroughly referenced article on an episode of Doctor Who? U-Mos (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Googling The Doctor's Wife -wikipedia reveals that this episode is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A Japanese novel from the 1960s is going to be pretty obscure for today's English speakers. It is not even the primary topic for The Doctor's Wife (novel). That would be this book. Kauffner (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This episode does seem to be more of a primary topic between the two and is more likely to be the one searched for than the other. SilverserenC 14:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment; the relative quality of the articles in question is not a naming criterion. Powers T 13:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support based on the apparent renown (or lack thereof) of either similarly titled novel compared to a highly-watched television program. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Doctor's Wife/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 04:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

First I have to say I absolutely love this episode. The Doctor and Sexy. Great stuff.

  • Production: The final sentence of the first paragraph of "Writing" doesn't have a citation
    • Added one from the Q&A it's mentioned in, and changed sentence to conform to that. Glimmer721 talk 00:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Production: ""neutralise [her] a bit," -> ""neutralise [her accent] a bit,"
  • References: Use consistent dating. There some "MM DD, YYYY" action, as well as some "YYYY-MM-DD" in places
    • I think I fixed this. Unless I missed something, all the references used DD MM YYYY except for ref #4, which I corrected. Glimmer721 talk 00:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • References: Link BBC News, The Telegraph, and The Independent
  • References: Ref 23 has an issue: it appears to be dead

Those are the only issues I can find. On hold for seven days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed everything. Glimmer721 talk 00:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Everything looks good. I pass.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Confession of Love[edit]

Right before disappearing the remnant of the TARDIS' matrix, in Idris' body, tells the doctor "I love you". Wouldn't that be worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.106.136 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Working title[edit]

Lots of fictional works have working titles--it is not notable. As for An Unearthly Child, it is known by several titles in the literature (as mentioned in the article). DonQuixote (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless reliable secondary sources commonly and consistently refer to this episode by its working title, it's not notable for the lede. DonQuixote (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)