Talk:The Stolen Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Stolen Earth is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 23, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 16, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 3, 2008.
Current status: Featured article


Per WP:LEAD there should be no more than 4 paragraphs that summarize the article. Given the size of the paragraphs in this article, 4 of them would be extremely long. This makes me assume that these lead paragraphs are a bit too verbose, and probably need to be trimmed and summarized to be more succinct.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is a guideline. If an article is helped by slightly deviating from a guideline, then it should deviate. In this case, it helped it to become a featured article. EdokterTalk 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This is around 77kb long. Compared to other featured articles of the same length, it's just about right. I wouldn't object until it filled more than a screen at 1440*900. Sceptre (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


I've been trying to shorten up the longest caption on an image I've ever seen. Rose cradles a dying Doctor. A scene written by Russell T Davies as a pastiche of romance fiction, and described by David Tennant as a "bitter scene of high emotion". This sentance doesn't make sense? Maybe change it to "Doctor, in a"? The caption is very long, and I don't see any other caption give the position of the scene in the episode, the plot section reveals he was shot by a Dalek, and Davies and Tennant's job positions can be seen on the same screen, just to the left. I see someone's idea was to reveal production information and cite it, and that information is preserved in the caption by my proposed edit. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Captions don't have to be short; for fair use images, they need to prove critical commentary as well. I think we're losing some, or at least compromising the fluidity of the prose, by changing the caption. Sceptre (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:Captions states they should be brief, ideally two short sentances. They are pretty long sentances right now. Sentances containing redundancies of Davies and Tennant's jobs. The critical commentary is completely intact in my proposed edit, I cut nothing that relates to commentary. The purpose of the caption is identified as illustrating the romance and emotion of the scene for Rose and the Doctor, which would be the same no matter who shot him. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It provides context to the episode. Besides, WP:CAPTIONS is advisory, not instructional, and there isn't any reason why we can't have a fifty word caption. Especially for a fair-use image. Sceptre (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, when I dismiss guidelines without offering another guideline to support my counter-position I get my ass handed to me in the discussion. The fair-use argument is not weakened by the caption not being full of redundant information, not while it's got original information and a cite. It's safe. Context that's provided by the article is a flimsy arguement for ignoring a guideline. But I have yet to see someone add a "maintained" tag without asserting ownership like this. -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article length issues[edit]

This article is currently 92KB long, well beyond the recommended size for Wikipedia articles - see WP:Article size, which states that any article over 60KB should probably be split unless it covers a particularly broad or wide-ranging topic (which is obviously not the case here; this article is about a single episode). Normally in such circumstances the best approach would be to split the article into smaller sub-articles which would be easier to read and edit, but in this case there don't seem to be any reasonable candidates for spin-off articles. Instead, this article simply should be cut down to a more manageable size. In particular, I would say the 'analysis' and 'reception' sections are excessively long at the moment, and read more like a collection of every single review the episode received than a balanced summary of its impact, which is what they ought to be. Is anyone willing to take on this task and get this article up to the standards that, as a featured article, it really should meet? Terraxos (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I say we don't have to do anything, as like you say, this is a featured article (which has no requirements regarding article length). Also, WP:SIZE is a guideline, which is advisory, not mandatory. EdokterTalk 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Even though it is 92kb, there are 139 featured articles longer than this. There really is no "maximum size" for an article (indeed, Iraq War, even as a summary article, is three times longer than this, though I understand that's a bit trivialising), especially a featured article, and I don't think the reader will get tired of reading it; there's enough breaks in the text (blockquotes, images, headers) to allow the reader to pause for a second, and continue; hell, I did that deliberately so I wouldn't get bored from checking the article for typoes, et cetera. Sceptre (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering why a huge section in this article (and others from the series) is devoted to Walker's analysis. This seems incredibly excessive when other critics are given mere passing notice.

Hal 10000.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Walker is a known DW analyst. That, and his review/etc is five-to-seven times longer than most reviews, which warrants more discussion about his viewpoint. Sceptre (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but the article is about the episode, not about Walker. That section is something much more appropriate to a fan site than to a universal encyclopedia. The Monsters Within analysis alone is 15 kb, larger than the critical analysis sections Wikipedia has for major literary and film classics of the English language. Is the Stolen Earth of greater cultural significance than Moby Dick? Or Hamlet? Or Ciizen Kane? Or anything else you care to nominate?

I would suggest that the entire "Reception" section be severely reduced in size to be more compliant with wikipedia standards and the rest of the DW episode articles within wikipedia. Other sections need to be trimmed as well, but that stands out.

Hal 10000.0 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You try to summarise the seven-page analysis in two pages, without short changing, then. He simply gets more coverage because of his status and how thorough his reviews are. Sceptre (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
FA? Fuck off more like - if you think I'm going to read all that!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That is quite enough. No one is forcing you to read the entire article. The Stolen Earth on Wikia is even longer; and that one only deals with the plot. EdokterTalk 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've sliced a healthy chunk off of this article and removed the chronic overlinking. If anyone feels it absolutely needs more details then please add what you think is missing, but the previous edits were horrid. Wtbe7560 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that most of the content of this page has been reviewed at FA, its very unlikely that there is "chronic overlinking" which would have been criticized there. Further, the style that you change the plot summary to (and indeed, across most of the other new DW episodes) is not really the way we write plot summaries on WP. We need to stay out of universe and that means, as in this episode where there are lots of callbacks to previous episodes, we need to link back to them appropriately to help the reader. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Also to note: WP:BRD - after you were reverted, you shouldn't have re-reverted to your preferred version, instead starting this talk page discussion first. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree about the overlinking. It's not necessary to link the names of the main characters in the article when they are all listed in the sidebar that accompanies the article. The grammar in these articles is atrocious, I've removed sentences with as many as five commas. I am shocked that this was FA when it looks like this. However, I defer to the rest of you that seem to feel that this article is perfect. Wtbe7560 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

DWC quote in caption[edit]

Confidential Cutdown subtitles

The correct quote is "It's a moment of high emotion for all involved", not "a bitter moment of high emotion". The clip is easily found on YouTube.

Kateorman (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I've double and triple checked the quote: Tennant says "a bitter moment of high emotion". Subtitles are known to deviate from the source material and aren't really reliable. Sceptre (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
He clearly says "a bitter moment of high emotion". The fact that Time After Time got put in my head three times is indicative that I checked it the first time. Sceptre (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I hear that as "It's a moment of high emotion... for all involved". Not entirely sure where the bitter part comes from? Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
He pauses, then says "bitter". It's quickly said, but it is said. Sceptre (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
We are risking getting a little bit too pedantic here, but I have listened to it over and over and I am almost certain he says "It's a [pause] It's a moment of high emotion [pause] for all involved" Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That is how I hear it too... (as just a pause) But seriously, WP:OR people. I removed the quote. Prodego talk 02:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Can it not just be left as "DT described the moment as having "high emotion"." ? --MASEM (t) 02:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably. Or find the official subtitles. Prodego talk 02:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to concede defeat on this one. I had to listen to it about five or six times, but you're right; it is "it's a moment of high emotion". Sceptre (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DWM reviews?[edit]

Is there room for Doctor Who Magazine's reviews of the episode? I don't see a "fan reaction" section and I'm not sure it holds the same weight as the mainstream newspaper reviews in the Critical Reception section but I love Gary Gillatt's description in DWM 403 of TSE/JE as "the most thrilling that can happen to a Doctor Who fan short of Tom Baker knocking on your front door and asking to watch Part Three of The Deadly Assassin." There's also Dave Owen's review in issue 399. It might help to balance out the (IMO excessive) coverage of Stephen James Walker's review.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've said quite a few times: SJW's review is very long, and we have to give it justice, you know? I've been kind of wary of DWM reviews as they are part-advertisement, but, then again, DWM does recognise the faults of the programme. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I know it's long (I have the book too), but I still feel it could be a paragraph or two shorter. I would also guess that DWM has a much higher readership than Telos Publishing's books. Gillatt and Owen are as prominent in fandom as Walker is and their views should be mentioned as well as as his.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article as Spoiler[edit]

I thought this was a science fiction novel or short story when I clicked on the title, only to discover a photo with a caption about a dying Doctor Who. Thanks for the spoiler. Whose bright idea was it to make a featured article out of a finale and then place it on this wiki's front page?! tharsaile (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It was first broadcast more than five years ago, so it's not like we were spoiling an unbroadcast episode. Please see WP:SPOILER. Regarding featured articles (FAs): the criteria for these are strict, but once FA status has been attained, almost every such article is allowed one day as "Today's Featured Article" (TFA). That particular one was chosen partly because 23 November 2013 was the 50th anniversary of the very first episode of Doctor Who, but also because it was one of only two Doctor Who articles that have attained FA status that had not yet been TFA.
The choice is made at WP:TFA/R, and the actual decision was made here. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)