This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.

	Doctor Who Portal  This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 What needs doin' 2 Cast Notes and Production 3 More episode articles? 4 Hearsay 5 Image argument 5.1 Straw poll to gauge support 5.2 Voting is evil (and in this case, irrelevant) 6 Start Time 7 Adipose - pics available 8 RTD's Critisism of time slot 9 Shadow Proclamation 10 Quotes vs Italics 11 Stacey's surname 12 External Link Added 13 Continuity 14 Rose guest star 15 Ratings 16 Citation Needed 17 Reference numbering broken 18 Donna's dad 19 Level pegging OR equal 20 American Premiere

[edit] What needs doin'

Now someone decided (without discussion, maybe...) to create the article, I'm going to sketch out a rough to-do list for it, if I may.

• Find sources for cast... Sarah Lancashire (Miss Foster), Claudio Laurini (Miss Fosters guard), Bernard Cribbins (Wilf, Donna's Grandad), Jacqueline King (Sylvia, Donna's Mum), Steve Braham, Howard Attfield (Geoff, Donna's Dad) according to the forum; we ought to source as many as possible.
• Picture from trailer, probably the "spark of life" frame, once we've confirmed Sarah Lancashire for this episode.
• Synopsis/extract from Newsround (RTD says "strangest ever aliens").
• Ensure that no start-date is added until we know the start-date!

How's that? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1. DWN's guest stars are Lancashire, Verona Joseph, Chandra Ruegg, Jessica Gunning, Martin Ball, King, and Cribbins (DWM 393, page 10, "30 reasons to be excited about Series 30!")
2. See above
3. RTD says something about the aliens and the special effects in the same column.
4. Only two more days to wait... Will ^(talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Point 3... plus Newsround - we've got plenty to go on, then! I'll get working afterwards. Point 4... so we hope! —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast Notes and Production

Is there any reason why these two sections were cut?--Wiggs (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the production information was specific to the episode, and the cast info only mentioned that they appeared in earlier episodes, which isn't realy worth mentioning. — Edokter • Talk • 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More episode articles?

can we start on the other ones yet??? --82.21.22.241 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done the next one, that'll do for starters, I reckon. Have two future episodes at any one time, maybe. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hearsay

The article has today been semi-d (at my request) for three days, due to the absurd amount of trivial non-info from anons. I suggest that we keep a very close eye out after that period's ended, as this is likely to get worse, not better. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image argument

OK, it's happened. I say the image stays. Any other opinions? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you justify why this article needs an image now? You need content to provide critical commentary on. Something this article present lacks. Matthew (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happier with a "You shout for me, gramps" image. We can discuss about their previous appearances and have a better FU claim. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, would you care to upload one? —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, no matter what we put up here, you will remove it. Also, there is consensus to put the notice up, see WT:WHO#Lots of protection. — Edokter • Talk • 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume people are [generally] content with the new image? —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I will remove any image that doesn't comply with policy -- yes. I have removed that template too. Sorry, but I'm not seeing the consensus you speak of. Nobody has even supported that suggestion (but one person -- myself -- has disagreed with it). Matthew (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1. (edit conflict) Can I draw people's attention to this.
2. Can Matthew please stop simply reverting (and possibly breaking WP:3RR) and vocalise his issues. That's what talkpages are for. I'm sure that the BBC won't sue us if we spend 20 minutes discussing it first.
3. His last edit summary said to "see the talkpage", however, he's not edited it. At all. I invite him to do so. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to the latest note: the template was supported by Edokter and LA. Please don't outright lie, Edokter obviously just gave his support above and in the discussion he linked to. The image seems to comply with policy; we all agree that it does. You think that it doesn't. Please re-read consensus and post on WP:ANI (or even WP:AN3!) if you see fit. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted him, the picture is back--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good! And myself and another user have filed for protection. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)And he's done it again without discussion. I've reverted - I encourage discussion and protection. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And if Matthew still wants it removed, I suggest he take it to Fair-use review. — Edokter • Talk • 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we protect? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To respond to your third point: I've edited this page twice (three times now), once at 18:17 and the second at 19:59. Secondly, I'm equally sure the article will survive for 20 minutes without the image. Matthew (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the image is back and its staying--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest we come to a conclusion, a firm consensus over this, before the protection expires? See below. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware straw polls could override policy. Frankly I feel like we've been through this before (probably because we already have). But then again "All of this has happened before and all of it will happen again." Matthew (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely was not suggesting that a straw poll could override policy, and I reckon you know that and are just trying to be awkward. The definition of "straw poll" is a vote with nonbinding results. Thus, the results of this are non-binding and don't override policy. However, WP:CON is policy, BTW. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll to gauge support

Do you support the current image, one showing Wilf and Donna, with its caption, and do you think that it is compliant with the numerous copyright, non-free content and fair use policies in force on Wikipedia?

1. Yes. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes. Passes #4 (cinema trailer counts as publication), passes #8 if we can talk about Donna's and Wilf's previous interactions with the Doctor (which is why I think this picture is better than Sarah Lancashire). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
   • This argument reads like "WP:ILIKEIT and here's how we alter the article to justify its inclusion". Besides, this image is not indispensible in stating how this character is important in this episode, which appears to be your NFCC #8 rationale. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
3. No. WP:NFCC#1 requires that the media be irreplaceable with prose; the characters presented are engaged in nothing that cannot be described otherwise, being "representative of the episode's plot as a whole" is a purpose best accomplished by a description of such. WP:NFCC#3a requires the media be used only if necessary; such necessity has not been established. WP:NFCC#8 requires that the media "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, [and have] its omission [...] be detrimental to that understanding;" I understand the article Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) well w/o the two caucasoids and their hats; sans the image, the article conveys exactly the same information. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Yes. i think it passes NFCC #4 and #8--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
   • I think screencaps (of published video) do not by themselves violate NFCC #4, as long as the screencap in question does not violate other terms of NFCC. We can ask for clarification if needed. However, NFCC #8 remains a problem, and NFCC #1 and NFCC #3a may also be problems here. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes Passes NFCC with regards to promotional material (#4 & #8). — Edokter • Talk • 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Comment. This is a decorative usage, clearly fails NFCC #8. Can someone who believes this usage passes #8 please explain how the image "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic"? I find it hard to believe. Arguments made above for NFCC #1 & #3a are also concerns. This image should simply not be used. This matter can not be decided by voting. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
7. NO Clearly and utterly fails NFCC #8. This random screenshot does not increase readers' understanding of the topic, which is required and cannot be ignored with a simple WP:ILIKEIT. And as Edgarde pointed out voting on this is completely useless. These kind of violations are not at all votable or ignorable. — Κaiba 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
   • Wikipedia:Fair use review would be proper forum to decide this. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
     • The image has now been listed there. See here. --Bragen 08:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1. No. This is classic decorative fair use. It does NOT significantly increase our understanding of the topic in any way whatsoever. Compare and contrast the useless image here, that doesn't connect with the article at all, with the understanding that the fair use media brings to Concerto delle donne. I understand the Dr Who fans want their pretty pics, but this is not on. I also agree with Edgarde and Kaiba - a poll on this isn't really acceptable either. It's so clear-cut I can't understand why we're debating in the first place. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not clear-cut, obviously. Five users, one admin, think that it's fine, so there's obviously ambiguity. Please think about this concept. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it really is clear-cut. Anyone who thinks it isn't either doesn't understand NFCC, the purpose of Wikipedia, or has watched too many Doctor Who episodes. Also, you're committing a logical fallacy. Just because one crowd think one thing, and another crowd something else, doesn't preclude one of these crowds from being completely wrong. 81.99.113.232 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, no. But it does preclude the issue being "clear". —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes It passes NFCC #8 and #4.--Wiggs (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Please explain why you think it does. How does the image add to our understanding of the topic at this moment in time? 81.99.113.232 (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained declaractions that the image passes NFCC have no weight here. This is not even an WP:ILIKEIT, just a wish it were so. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Explaination, the screencap gives the reader a visual understanding of the episode allowing them picture what two of the charicters will look like using fair use promotional material.--Wiggs (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1. No clearly fails WP:NFCC#8, completely random screenshot that does not increase reader's understanding of the article. Also fails #1 and probably #3a as well, without even looking at others. Incidentally, you can't use "passes NFCC#4" as an argument for such an image, because it is quite clear from the policy that "Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." This shouldn't even be arguable, really. Since when did we have polls on clear-cut policy issues? Black Kite 10:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
2. No, obviously, as per Black Kite above. Find something analytic to say about what the image shows, then you can use it. This is the paradigm case of a purely decorative image (like on many other episode pages, of course). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   Note that this goes for the image that was originally proposed just as much as for any other equally random screencap. The randomness with which one was replaced with another ([1]) just goes to show how useless these really are. If one serves as well as the other, then none is really important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting is evil (and in this case, irrelevant)

Votes are bad, and regardless, this is not an issue for which a vote can be taken, any more than one can vote on whether or not an article should be NPOV—the answer is always "yes", even if a vote or discussion says "no". In this case, the vote is whether an image can be used, when it is not critical for understanding. It is not, and the concept of the episode can be conveyed by text alone, so both the Foundation's resolution and our nonfree content policies are clear, and it must be removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't voting, this is polling editor's argument for and aginst inclusion. Calling it a vote is basically saying "I don't care about your arguments". — Edokter • Talk • 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand, Seraphimblade, is that your argument is perfectly logical and correct, except this passage: "the vote is whether an image can be used, when it is not critical for understanding; it is not". The last three words are clearly wrong. Who gave you the authority to say that? Who told you that you're write and the six or seven people who think that it is, are wrong? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Seraphimblade doesn't need "authority" to say that, because it is patently correct; the image is quite plainly not critical for understanding anything in the article. I find it somewhat worrying that so many editors, some experienced, can be reading such a clear policy so wrongly. Black Kite 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe, we're not editing it wrongly. Had you considered that? If it is "patently correct", then surely there should be little disagreement over it? I think that you may be wrong. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence in the article would be difficult for the reader to understand if the image was removed? Black Kite 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The parts about the relationship between the Doctor, Donna and Wilf. I frankly find it disgusting that you can be so sure you're right as to say that there is no other POV. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about that relationship. Do you want to try again? Black Kite 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The picture is important, both Donna and her Grandfather have encountered the Doctor separately, this image explains a majority of what the episode may be about when it airs, besides last year we had an edit war over the same problem involving images please don't let this happen again this year and possibly all the years to come--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The image explains what the episode "may be about"? --Bragen 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The image explains what the episode may be about? What's special about using this copyrighted image to do so, as opposed to describing the same? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

all the other new episode articles have pictures are you going to delete them aswell?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention anything about the story of the relationship between those two. Fair use images can only be used in the context of commentary of the subject. No one has provided a satisfactory rationale to meet NFCC #8, where it says that the image has to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Unless you're a Doctor Who fan, unlike myself, they wouldn't understand what that screenshot is about, or understands why it is significant. This screenshot nor the commentary tells the reader why that particular image of those people are significant to the episode. I hope you do realize that taking a single still-image from an episode of Doctor Who and putting it in the infobox of the episode doesn't meet fair use by itself. In that case, yes, if other images are being used like that, they should be removed. — Κaiba 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we should delete the others too. No Dr. Who episode article I've ever seen had a convincing reason for an image in the infobox. In fact, an image being in the infobox constitutes almost prima facie evidence it's merely decorative. If it was doing anything actually useful, people would integrate it in the text where it's discussed. I am seriously considering simply removing the field from the box template. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor Who articles actually used to contain non-free content in their plot sections. Why they were moved into the infobox... I don't know. I'd support the removal of the image field anyway. Matthew (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Be advised that doing so is nothing short of disruptive editing and subject to immediate stept to ensure this kind of behaviour will never happen again. Your interpretation, or any editor's for that matter, does not warrant such a drastic step without some direct decree from the foundation. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your threats are ill-advised. I also wonder, given the fact that you are obviously too much involved in these articles to take admin action (well, I do hope you are aware of that, anyway), what exactly would those "steps" be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling my advise "threats" is not helping. Any editor engaging in disruptive editing is subject to sanctioning. As an admin I am well aware of my limitiation, but there are 1300 more. AN/I would be the first step, but this could well end up at ArbCom is this issue isn't settled. Right now, I am thouroughly sick of the unworkable wording in NFCC that I am considering taking the foundation itself to task to force them to come up with wording that is not open to interpretation. I do not even care about this picture, as it is only there temporary; by the time this discussion is over, the episode has long aired. But the implications being spewed that all screenshots are going to be oblititated by a single edit, is arbitrary and simply not acceptable. That is why you are warned. — Edokter • Talk • 12:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I share your dissatisfaction with the Foundation's unwillingness to settle things more clearly. I doubt you could "force" them to give a more detailed guideline; I think they have repeatedly declined to do so. Likewise, Arbcom would only rule on things like wheelwarring but not on the underlying conflict, so they are no help either. So, unfortunately, we'll again be left to our own devices. Of course, you could also respond to the core of my proposal: The presence of that field in the infobox serves to promote the misunderstanding that there is a blanket allowance of one arbitrary non-free image per episode article. Which there isn't. Every image has to be individually justified; long-standing consensus (well, outside the narrow confines of the TV wikiprojects, probably) is that this can only happen in conjunction with analytical commentary in the text; infoboxes lead editors to just paste in whatever image comes to hand without such textual embedding. In the (rare, IMO) cases where an image is truly needed for analytical purposes, it can just as well be placed freely in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edokter, I suggest you stop your threats, before I make a case on your behavior. — Κaiba 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides if the image violated NFCC Betacommandbot would have removd the image long before this discussion ever happened, i belive Betacommandbot agrees with that the image should stay, unless you can claim the bot is broken--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete hogwash. BetacommandBot isn't supposed to know what images violate NFCC #8, it is programed to moniter NFCC #10 where the image has a valid rationale on the image description page. — Κaiba 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just like to point out that this is not so cut-and-dried because of the fact that it's from a promotional material that's edited from the actual episode, in which case, to comply with fair use, the caption should mention something to that effect as it's not readily obvious (see Dracula (1931 film) for use of promotional material). As an image depicting the episode proper (as opposed to the promotional material), it's merely decorative as it isn't really used to illustrate anything that can't be said within a sentence. Now if the image were a cast photo or an image of alien creatures or spaceships, something that can't be easily picture through words, then it'll probably fall under the category of important. DonQuixote (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And to respond to the above, no one "gave" me the authority to say so. However, the Wikimedia Foundation, which does have authority which supersedes yours, mine, or even the authority of any type of consensus (which yes or no votes don't establish anyway), clearly stated that use of nonfree material must be minimal. Allowing it "by category" and using it when it is effectively a pretty for the infobox and is not essential for understanding is maximal use. No one has presented an argument that the image is critical to a reader's understanding. (Remember, just "helpful" to such understanding is not enough.) It's the same type of thing as NPOV. The Foundation has mandated that all mainspace material on every Wikimedia project must be presented in a neutral point of view, no exceptions. We could not hold a vote on whether to instead present this article from a fan's point of view—even if a strong consensus formed to do so, it would be disallowed by that requirement. The same here. Decorative nonfree images are forbidden in all cases, and consensus, polls, or anything else will not overrule that, least not unless the person voting also happens to be on the Board. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I will support Seraphimblade in any administrative measure necessary to see this through. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Start Time

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2008/03/26/53840.shtml its a confirmed 6.20 start time, I would add it but the page is locked - or so I think.--Wiggs (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done (I removed the now outdated CBBC link too). Black Kite 09:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adipose - pics available

[2] If they're worth adding. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also some information on the technology the mill are using which would sit in our artical nicely.--Wiggs (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

they don't look intimidating, they look cute!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've put in an image. Matthew has already deleted it using his special auto-delete software :-( I replaced it and added more info about the Adipose. The image now serves this purpose: to illustrate not only the appearance of the Adipose (which is hard to describe by words alone) but also to provide visual representation of the effect created by the use of Massive software, as sourced, which is notable in being the first such software to be used on television, anywhere in the world. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The image is still decorative and does not pass all ten criteria at WP:NFCC. In fact I believe text would be more than fine... Matthew (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, which one would it fail? And how would you adequately describe an Adipose in prose? — Edokter • Talk • 22:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC) describe

"No free equivalent": the image can be replaced with text, which more than amply describes the adipose. "Significance": the image does not increase the reader's understanding as it merely shows what the Adipose looks like, which again can be replaced with text. Perhaps write something that would require illustration? Matthew (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely can not understand why this was deleted, it is a brilliant aid to the user to help he/she to visulise the first ever use of massive FX technology on television. I understood why Mathew wanted rid of the previous image but the resoning behind this one is simply ridiculous.--Wiggs (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is quite a ground breaking event in television. I resored the image and asked Matthew to take it to fair-use review instead if he so wishes. — Edokter • Talk • 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this image – as a reader – increases my understanding of the topic. Matthew (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, you are edit-warring. And you are not the only reader on Wikipedia. The image illustrates the result of mass-character CGI never seen before in television. Just because you don't seem to understand it, doesn't mean other won't either. Stop edit-warring and take it to fair-use review to have the image reviewed. I have told you three times already. — Edokter • Talk • 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I had the chance to see Matthew's description of the Adipose before the pic, and so I think I can comment on just how well it describes them: Not adequately, by any measure. I was thinking more along the lines of small balls, like beads of mercury, not like in the pic at all. If anything, Matthew, you've just proved that the Adipose can't be adequately described in text. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, I am inclined to agree with inclusion (and you guys know I'm otherwise among the most critical about episode images). If the introduction of computer-animated cute little blobs is such a notable new feature in this episode, let us see them. It really makes the coverage more informative. What I object to, much more strongly, are those items where you just see a couple of guys talking and the like. It also makes it easier to accept such images if the accompanying text is actually encyclopedic. "The technology will be used to animate the Adipose, as they are born and move around London." is a decent start for an encyclopedic treatment. "But most of all: how can they stop the onslaught of the foetus-like Adipose?" is not. Unfortunately, the Dr Who crowd has had a tendency for the style of the latter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - and since there will probably be an even better screencap come Saturday, even this arch anti fair-use editor doesn't see the point in removing this one for two days. Black Kite 06:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to all that happened in my sleep ;-) The image seems to satisfy the criteria; you can't possibly describe all that in words, otherwise the BBC would produce books and not TV! —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can add a bit more about the Adipose when I get home and get hold of my RT. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. As for the soap-style plot lines; I ususally remove them instantly. They ususally get added by IP editors and fans not familiar with Wikipedia policy. — Edokter • Talk • 12:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the new image either; the image here does genuinely serve a purpose that text alone cannot; so it seems to fit current common practice as to nonfree images. (Whether or not I agree with that practice is a different question, but not one that really goes here.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally not convinced that it cannot be described with text alone. The CGI is paltry at best and has no detail that text couldn't describe. In fact, having watched this pathetic excuse of an episode, there are several other moments that an image could illustrate better than text (e.g. Donna and the Doctor through the telescope waving to Granddad). Matthew (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoah! What a load of nonsense... the fact that you think the episode was crap (I actually thought it was one of the best) is laughably immaterial. The CGI being paltry is beside the point - CGI cannot be described by words, as we all agree ("silver blobs" doesn't do it; seriously, would they go to such expense over animation if it was un-necessary?!). "Donna and the Doctor through the telescope waving to Granddad" perfectly describes that scene, so an image is no good for it. If you have text to replace the Adipose image, fire away. But wait for a consensus to develop before adding it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I agree? No. So obviously we all don't agree. We could get into a pissing contest, but I simply don't have the time to check back often; it also doesn't help that I'm unsupported. Matthew (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion, so it was a total waste of your time thinking about it (I guess), typing it, then a waste of the 'Pedia bandwidth rendering it, and my time reading it. You know what I mean, I know what I mean, so unless you're going to respond to my points, Matt, then there's little point editing this section. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No I don't know what you mean, and I'm unsure as to the points you speak of. My reply had a purpose, which your comment seems to lack. But I do believe you give some good advice... if misdirected, which I believe you should definitely heed. That said I do hope you won't reply and continue this discussion, and waste more of my time too. Matthew (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RTD's Critisism of time slot

An artical has featured in Ariel magazine (http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php#newsitemEkpyyFlyVADTslRAWy) Russell T Davies criticizing the 6.20 start time, this could go in under pre-broadcast publisity.--Wiggs (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Added to article. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Proclamation

Mrs Foster mentions the Shadow Proclamation, suspecting that the Doctor and Donna are working for, or reporting to them/it. Obviously, we've heard the term before (in "Rose" and "The Christmas Invasion"), so it should probably be noted in a "Continuity" section. I'm just not sure how best to go about it, so I'll leave it to someone else. I'd guess "Shadow Proclamation" is the Series Four "code word" too, although that's Original Research of course, so we don't need to add that. :) Kelvingreen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think The Shadow Proclamation is the S4 codework. We know what the SP is, wheras Torchwood was revealed at the series finale and the same goes for Badwolf, the end of the series. SimpsonsFan08 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

THe new DWM says that there will be no arc-words, but instead one word or event per episode, that all get collected in the final episodes. This is entirely WP:OR, but I'm gessing that, according to Wilfred Mott, Venus is in a place in the sk that is different to real life. One thing to note about the Shadow Proclamation is that in Rose, it was like a treaty or something, whereas in this, it is an actual body, like a Government. But then again, this is also WP:OR - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sense in this episode was that the SP existed as some kind of organisation, although there's no reason why it can't be both. Anyway, WP:OR aside, the fact that the SP is mentioned here is probably worth a note in a continuity section, is it not? Kelvingreen (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, with particular reference to "Rose", as Rose only really quoted it from the Doctor in "The Christmas Invasion" - Weebiloobil (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I reckon that that mysterious exchange between the Doctor and Donna about "bees disappearing" might possibly be this episode's "culmalative element" that could lead somewhere in the finale.Blaine Coughlan (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bees disappearing is supposed to be one of the signs of global warming, isn't it? If a certain photograph taken during filming is accurate, then the vanishing bees is certainly foreshadowing of the finale, and so I suppose would end up in a Continuity section or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.224.209 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is descening into fan-crap. Lets leave it here, shall we? As a side point, someone has helpfully created the Shadow Proclamation article, which needs a bit of a look-over. I've assessed it as Stub-class, so some work would be ideal, except I'm not really sure that it deserves its own article - Weebiloobil (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes vs Italics

Hey Wolf_of_Fenric why have you undone my edit that quoted "Survival" and put it back so its italics? Most other episode references are of the "quoted" kind, whats the difference here? Jasonfward (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that multi-episode serials are in italics, and "single episodes" are in quotes. See Wikipedia:manual of style. — Edokter • Talk • 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Seems bizarre and meaningless (except to the few in know), but hey ho, so be it. Jasonfward (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stacey's surname

Stacey was clearly called Stacey Campbell in the episode, yet in the credits she is Stacey Harris. So which should be listed in the infobox? U-Mos (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say neither; just Stacey. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Added

I've added a link to a blog which gives some reaction to the episode, to series 4 and contains alot of links and juicy screenshots.

Does anyone want a REALLY good "Adipose Industries" Logo? With the slogan underneath? I captured it from Captain Jack's Monster Fact File Video. Filthish (talk)

I quite would - upload it to ImageShack and link, maybe? Thanks! —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity

Where has this section gone? It's certainly above trivia as it attempts to assess the episode's place in Doctor Who as a whole by noting references to previous events and serials. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was writing the article I left it out as we could easily integrate it into the plot more than most episodes. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rose guest star

Having Billie's credit prominent on this page is such a huge spoiler! Are there any...uh...wiki-ways around that? Andral (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I placed Rose at the top of the guest stars list because she was on the closing credits sequence directly after the Doctor and Donna. Which is ridiculous in my opinion, but I thought Wikipedia should follow it. U-Mos (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. I just hate the idea of spoilers! I suppose if people haven't seen it they probably shouldn't be on this page, but people slip up. Andral (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

The ratings section suggests that the figures are the highest for a season premiere since Rose (as cited to Outpost Gallifrey). According to this story at BBC News Online, the figures are actually slightly down on last year's. While they don't yet include those who recorded the programme, if this is usually fewer than 310,000 people, the information in the article is likely wrong. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 19:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed

Can we get a reference for this statement in the lead: "in a scene that was withheld from the press." (This is talking about the scene with Rose) Thanks! Ank329 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't need it. It's cited below, in "broadcast". Sceptre ^(talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference numbering broken

There are in the references section two point 9's and all subsequent references are then mis-numbered. Is there anything we can do about that, or is it a big in the wikipedia software and if so any ideas about how it should be reported? Jasonfward (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They look fine to me. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems OK. Jasonfward, you must have stumbled on a hiccup by the page render; these things are all automatic, at any rate. Radagast (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I still have 2 point 9's :( it must not like me. Jasonfward (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donna's dad

Did the actor playing Donna's dad actually sie whilst being filmed for an episode? When I listened to the podcast I got the feeling they tried to rescedule filming to fit him in but he died before they had a chance to do his later scenes.--Wiggs (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, he filmed all the scenes for this episode, and was midway through shooting (probably Sontaran) when his condition got worse. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No one said he literally died during filming, just before his scenes for the series were complete. U-Mos (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Attfield didn't do a John Ritter. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the artical needs to be slightly reworded because its sounds like he died on set in the artical.--Wiggs (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Level pegging OR equal

In the "writing" section of the article, there appeared to be a quote from Tate that said she regarded her character and the Doctors as "level pegging", this as been edited and changed to an unquoted "equal". Since it would appear Tate actually said "level pegging" and that is not necessarily the same as "equal" should that be reverted back to the original even if "equal" reads better? Jasonfward (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "more equal". Sceptre ^(talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Premiere

SciFi Channel has the fourth season listed to begin airing on April 18th. Should this be added to the broadcast section?--Drscompanion2 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Partners in Crime airs on the 25th. (Voyage is part of the S4 rotation)Sceptre ^(talk) 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that usually noted after the air date then? Just wondering, I'm still kinda new to these pages.--Drscompanion2 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)