Talk:The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe

Proposed deletion

I removed the template, for the reasons expanded upon in the deletion discussion for the 2008 Christmas Special, which was kept as early as July 08.

The BBC have confirmed production has started and at least one other reliable source has confirmed this. It will be renamed once the title has been finalised. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Armstrong RAF pilot?

Just been removed as unsourced, but can be sourced to " doctorwhotv.co.uk not sure of that site's reliability but it is used as a RS in several other Doctor Who based articles. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not confident as they name their source on everything but this. Best treat it as anything unsourced on Wikipedia.Edgepedia (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Primary source (for which doctorwhotv is the secondary) is [1] or similar. Armstrong is in uniform as an RAF officer on set. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The specific article is here. But the actual "source" is the picture, which isn't much help. For all we know, that's a costume Armstrong's going to wear for a Halloween party. Until something more specific comes out (at least with a character name), it's going to likely stay TBA. Something reliable should come out soon though, I should think. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DoctorWhoTV has a strong editorial policy so meets our definition of a reliable source (or at least as reliable as any other newspaper articles about the special). Inclusion of the information, attributing it to the site within the "Production notes" section may be more appropriate with a TBC on the cast list. As for whether "that's a costume Armstrong's going to wear for a Halloween party", Armstrong commented that he had been filming for the special sitting in the cockpit of a Lancaster - by definition a secondary source takes two pieces of information and performs an analysis on them to come up with a conclusion - in this case, that conclusion made by DoctorWhoTV is that he is playing an RAF pilot. We cannot take those two pieces of information and analyse as that would be original research but if someone reliable has already done it then it is perfectly acceptable to note that they have done so. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

References to old series

Androzani harvester. I immediately thought of “The Caves of Androzani”… Dsalt (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The inevitable companion discussion

I'm saying no one was a companion in that episode until sources directly call them such. If the Doc had whisked the Ponds away in the TARDIS at the end of the ep then that would be different, but he appears to have just paid them a visit before (presumably) taking them back on his travels in series 7. U-Mos (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing; no one was really the companion. Perhaps we should put a hidden note in the infobox which will helpfully avoid people adding the Ponds or Madge or who knows else (Lilly? Cyril?) as companions. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a short note considering an editor just decided Madge was a companion. To be clear, inclusion in the titles does not automatically make someone a companion: see, for instance, the Master in The End of Time. For clarity: I would say that Amy and Rory could be companions here if, for instance, series 7 started with them polishing off their Christmas dinner and hopping into the TARDIS afterwards. But if he makes another trip to see them at a later/earlier point, then that will not make them companions here. U-Mos (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Dan Martin of the Guardian Martin, Dan (25 December 2011). "Doctor Who: The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe". theGuardian. Retrieved 27 December 2011. implies she's a companion. Any good? Edgepedia (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a little flag of caution, you said "implies". DonQuixote (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As DonQuixote says, I don't think that's direct enough to cite changing Madge's status. Really we'd need something from the BBC or production staff, or enough secondary sources to tell us she is generally thought of as a companion. U-Mos (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the cast notes regarding this. DWM, considered the publication of record, refers to the characters as companions in its preview in issue #442 and, of notability, defines Cyril as the youngest companion ever, so I have added this information based on this (with citation). However, personally speaking, the only character in the story who actually qualifies as a true one-off companion in the same vein as, say, Lady Christina is Lily. Cyril is a "target of rescue", while Madge works independently for most of the story, placing her in the Sally Sparrow category. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just my tuppence: this discussion is by no means "inevitable". It can be easily avoided by simply stopping the practice of marking anyone as companion in the infobox. It's a completely meaningless word and the discussions resemble medieval theological arguments about angels dancing on a pin. You can all just walk away from it (and nobody dies today...) Mezigue (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And from Wikipedia's perspective, this is the attitude that we as editors should be taking. We shouldn't be discussing who is or who isn't a companion. However, at the same time, we should also be careful to reflect what reliable sources are saying, which includes who is or isn't a companion. DonQuixote (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Madge be listed as companion as Kylie Minogue was basically as involoved as madge when kylie was in here episode and was in titles... so really madge acts as the doctors companion in this episode, as craig was even listed and not in titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.136.61 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The inevitable infobox image discussion

I really can't think of any scene from this episode that needs an image to understand it. Perhaps the only piece would be what an excavation walker is (thus using one of the exterior shots as Madge pilots the walker to the lighthouse), but even then, that's a stretch. I see someone has already put an image of Cyril being crowned but that's really not appropriate per NFCC#8.

Anything from sources that suggest an image to use? Otherwise I think we can go image-less here. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess an image goes in when you write something and need an image to go with it. I've removed the screenshot as failing NFCC#8. Edgepedia (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuity

I've found (well, reused) good references for the Androzani and Forest of Cheem references, but should we include the fact that the sonic's defect with wood was first mentioned in "Silence in the Library"? It seems to have become part of the show's mythology. Also, it's mentioned in he plot that it's been 2 years for Amy and Rory--why reiterate it? Any thoughts? Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 01:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Was Silence the first reference to this? I'm pretty certain this was mentioned in the original series. In any event I know it's been mentioned several times since Silence so it's not particularly notable. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Silence in the library was the first mention of this, but as it's been said repeatedly since I don't think its notable here. U-Mos (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

there's a mistake

Amy said that it was two years since he left he a message in the prequel of the episode. She didn't say it was two years since the events in The Wedding of River Song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androzaniamy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

you sure about this? Amy wasn't on the TARDIS to recieve that message. Edgepedia (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Reflecting on it, (and I need to see the episode again to be sure), I remember Amy complaining it has been 2 years since the Doctor left them, which happened in The God Complex. Edgepedia (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

She didn't specify anything. The message in the prequel was left to no one, there is no indication that Amy somehow received it. From Amy's perspective, she last saw the Doctor marrying River Song before returning to her timeline in "The Wedding of River Song". What point in time she is returned to is unclear, so we certainly can't specify any date. U-Mos (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was assuming "The God Complex" but the actual dialogue in the episode is "Sorry, not sure how long it's been" and Amy says, "Two years!" I was considering moving that from the continuity and into the plot section so it was something like "...two years since he left them there ("The God Complex")" but as that's not specified I think we should reach concensus here first. I'm hoping an interview or even the next series will help clarify this. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be The God Complex, seeing as Amy and Rory were returned to a time after this in "Wedding", strongly suggesting that they had been taken from a later point as well. And it was clear that they remembered the events of "Wedding" when returned to the house at the end of the episode, including seeing the Doctor post-God Complex. U-Mos (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 03:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's read some Doctor Who! Awesome. Dibs! :) The article looks good, and I will do a full review later. Good work. TBrandley 03:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

• 60 min should be 60 minutes
• Specials (2011-12) should use an en-dash, rather than a regular -, per WP:DASH

  ...I think I fixed this, correct me if I picked the wrong dash. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, you did. You got it done correctly. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede

• "is an episode" which episode?

  It doesn't have a number in the series. Just a special. See Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who). Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Understood. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Link science fiction
• "in which the Doctor visits Earth and an alien forest" add actor for the Doctor there.

  That wasn't supposed to be there, I removed it. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Makes sense. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• BBC One. In the United Kingdom?

  I think "British" covers this. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's also like that on most X-Files articles. So, that's fine. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Christmas Day 2011" re the actual day it aired on, then note that it was Christmas 2011

  I reformatted the first paragraph based on "Voyage of the Damned" to avoid being too wordy. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unlink the doctor, and remove the actor as it should be linked and actor should be noted already above.

  See comment above. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "He" makes it confusing. There are three people mentioned in the previous sentence, perhaps say "The doctor"
• "Cyril wanders through it first". Huh? Awkward.

  Changed to "but Cyril opens it before Christmas and wanders through". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  That's very fine. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "the UK". Write out fully to "United Kingdom".
• "Critical reception" to the episode?

  I made a minor change to your fix on the concern. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot

• Prequel: 6 December? Which year?
• Prequel: Link The Doctor, and add the doctor's actor at the time
• Episode: Unlink the doctor, per the very above issue
• Episode: Add a comma after house, and before specially

  When reading it like that it adds an unnecessary pause. "Specially" is an adverb describing "prepared". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Episode: Add actors for various characters in "Events"

  Did all except the wooden people - they aren't really actors in the same sense. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Cool. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Continuity: Is very small. Consider merging with another section, sub-section

  Moved to production. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Great. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Continuity: Add actor for the ninth doctor

  This doesn't quite seem right, as it's not referring to the character but rather the "era" - it's no different than saying "first season". Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Production

• "is directed by" to "was directed by"
• Linking in that image

  I removed it, if that's what you meant.

• In the second paragraph, consider paraphrasing. There seems to be too many quotes.

  Removed some that was just fluff. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The BBC" should be "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)" as it is the first time has been mentioned. Then, also, link British Broadcasting Corporation. Per MOS:ACRO
• Casting: Link Doctor Who. It is the first time it was mentioned in the actual article.

  I think this kind of redundent. It's in the lead, infobox, and navboxes if someone really needs it. WP:OVERLINK says, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Glimmer721 ^talk 23:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. I'll also make those changes to some of my articles, Say Hello to My Little Friend, Episode 14 (Twin Peaks), etc. Thanks, TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Broadcast and reception

• Create sub-section for "Ratings"

  Some show's do this, some don't. It's sort of a personal preference. I kept consistent with the articles that had promoted before me. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Christmas Day 2011" write the actual day it aired on, then note that it was Christmas 2011
• "26th" of December?

  Changed to "26 December" 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the UK → In the United Kingdom

  Can't abbreviations be used after some time? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Critical reception: Add comma before "Telegraph"

References

• FN1: Don't shout in reference titles
• FN1: SFX is missing publisher (Future Publishing)
• FN2: BBC America is missing publisher (BBC Worldwide)
• FN3: Digital Spy is missing publisher (Nat Mags)
• FN4: Link BBC, since WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply to references, also, per WP:REPEATLINK
• FN4: Is missing publisher (The Crown)

  Is that necessary? I mean, it's not like the others. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  I guess so. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• FN5: Link BBC, since WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply to references, also, per WP:REPEATLINK
• FN5: Is missing publisher (The Crown)
• FN6: SFX is missing publisher (Future Publishing)
• FN6: Link SFX
• FN6: Double quotes (") should be single quotes (') per WP:MOS guidelines
• FN6: SFX is missing publisher (Future Publishing)
• FN7: Is missing the publisher (Guardian Media Group)
• FN8: Link SFX
• FN8: Double quotes (") should be single quotes (') per WP:MOS guidelines
• FN8: SFX is missing publisher (Future Publishing)
• FN9: Link Metro
• FN9: Is missing publisher (Associated Newspapers)
• FN10: Link BBC
• FN10: Is missing publisher (The Crown)
• Various others are also missing publishers, and linking problems.

  Fixed two dead links. Did my best on the publishers. Not sure about using "The Crown" as it's not a larger publishing group (same with ABC and BARB), ref #22 is {{cite press release}} and will only accept one publisher and no work, Skegness Standard and The Forester don't have Wikipedia pages to link to and I'm not sure about the publisher (the former is the newspaper for Skegness, the latter says it's "an indpendent family-owned newspaper"), and Big Finish Productions is a private company. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  Oh. I'll totally forget the write the dead links here. Thanks for fixing those issues up. TBrandley 23:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• FN26: Can't see information. Can you make a note of where the information is?

External links

• The first link is missing quote marks

  It doesn't seem to be an option with the template. I'd fix it but I'm not good with templates. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  No worries. I got the issue, I just re-wrote the episode under the new parameter with quotations there.

• Put categories in alphabetical order

Great work! I'll put this on hold for now. TBrandley 20:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments above, did everything unless I said I didn't. I'm starting school tomorrow and I'm not sure exactly how much I'll be able to edit; you may have to ask for a second opinion on some of my questions if I show no activity in my contributions. Now I'm off to finish The Ribos Operation and enjoy my last day of summer. Cheers! Glimmer721 ^talk 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Its your last day of summer? I still got until September until I start school again, most likely because I'm in Canada. Those issues like fixed. I'll make some minor fixes, and then, pass the nomination. Great work. TBrandley 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article looks good. I'll pass it now. TBrandley 00:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, some areas of the US start really early. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Claire Skinner companion

@DonQuixote:Madge Arwell is the companion, my evidence being the actress' name appeared in the early credits, where the actors playing the Doctor and the companion(s) go. This has been the case for over ten years now.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 17:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite a source that says that that's "where the actors playing the Doctor and the companion(s) go". Otherwise, it's synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, John Simm was also listed in the opening credits, so your POV argument is flawed. DonQuixote (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, any protagonist who appears in the opening credits is the actor playing the Doctor/companion.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 17:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's not...which goes to show that that's a circular argument. The simplest thing to do, which avoids original research, synthesis and POV, is to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

But is there any evidence characters such as Astrid Peth, Adelaine Brooke and Wilfred Mott were companions. I mean, they are classified as companions in the infoboxes and were protaganists who were credited in the opening credits. I not looking for unnessary sources.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 18:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources were cited for those characters. So, if you would similarly cite a reliable source, then that would be great. DonQuixote (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)