|
|
| (47 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| This is a real story, why is the page being deleted (also when deleting a page you have to explain in your summary why you are deleting the page) [[User:Springwood1984|Springwood1984]] 21:40, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Happy now? The page is barren and the infobox is wrong. There is not much information available at the moment and it is only an infobox with a few rumours. {{User:Solar Dragon/Signature}} 21:55, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :
| |
| Then fix the info box, and let people fill the information in. Deleting it will only lead to someone else making a new page for it, since DWM has announced the name of the episode. [[User:Lokiofmidgaard|Lokiofmidgaard]] 21:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| Typically, in the past, pages have been made for upcoming episodes as soon as the titles of those episodes were revealed. There were pages for "The Vampires of Venice", "Vincent and the Doctor", and "The Big Bang" long before we knew any definite details for those episodes. There really ought to be pages for all the Sarah Jane series 4 episodes now. And even if we wait on those, the Doctor's appearance in "Death of the Doctor" makes it important enough to have a page dedicated to it now. [[User:Bluebox444|Bluebox444]] 22:01, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| | {{ArchCat}} |
| ==Prop delete, again==
| |
|
| |
|
| :The example cited above of ''[[The Vampires of Venice]]'' is actually an argument ''against'' the existence of this page at this very early stage. Episode names ''do'' change, even as late as the date of transmission. Or, as with ''The Pandorica Opens'', there's the possibility that the title might be the name of an actual item in the DWU and we might have to go back and changes lots of pages. For all we know, ''Death of the Doctor'' is the name of a book in the DWU. Impatience only creates additional work. I suggest that this, and all SJA series 4 episode pages should be deleted at this stage. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 22:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| | == Individuals == |
| :
| |
| :"The example cited above of ''[[The Vampires of Venice]]'' is actually an argument ''against'' the existence of this page at this very early stage. Episode names ''do'' change, even as late as the date of transmission. "
| |
| :By that logic, there's no point creating a page for any episode until after it has aired. If the episode title changes, set up a redirect, it's not that hard.
| |
| :"Or, as with ''The Pandorica Opens'', there's the possibility that the title might be the name of an actual item in the DWU and we might have to go back and changes lots of pages."
| |
| :Though it's highly doubtful a device would have the name "Death of the Doctor", in this kind of case you simply make a disambiguation page, and let people fix links over time - that's the whole advantage of a wiki site. So I don't see the need to delete this page. You talk about creating more work - deleting it will do that, because I guarantee you that again and again different contributors will come in unaware why the old one was deleted and recreate it from scratch. [[User:Lokiofmidgaard|Lokiofmidgaard]] 22:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :*I agree with the deletion. Even the series 5 ones weren't created this early. The episode won't even air until the fall. There is no point speculating who will be in the episode, who won't, and there's only two rumours on the main body of the article (which don't even have sources). There's no point in having it. [[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 22:21, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::::"By that logic, there's no point creating a page for any episode until after it has aired. If the episode title changes, set up a redirect, it's not that hard."
| | The item beginning "A companion called Dorothy(ea)" has several problems: |
| :::That is ''exactly'' what I'm saying. '''There's no point creating a page for any episode until after it has aired.''' You make it sound like all you have to is create a redirect and — ''voila!'' —it's all done. But it's much more than that. It's finding ''every'' instance of the wrong title on the wiki and changing it. Even with a bot it's a good day's work. Without a bot, it's potentially a ''much'' longer job, depending on how many links are made to the wrong title. You say "let people fix links over time", but do you have any idea how truly ''tedious'' that is? It's far, far easier to just keep deleting one page than to have links sprouting up all over the place. There were hundreds of links to ''The Pandorica Opens'' before they were stopped and reverted. Likewise, there were tons of links to ''Vampires of Venice'' and some to ''Vampires in Venice'' before we got broadcast confirmation that the actual name of the episode was ''The Vampires of Venice''. Though I'm constantly doing it, I'm honestly not thrilled about cleaning up messes like this which are caused be simple impatience. It is better to be accurate than to be first. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 22:26, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| | |
| :::
| | 1. The name is clearly given as "Dorothy something" & can't be "Dorothea something". |
| : And I reiterate - all deleting it will do is see it get constantly recreated by one user after another. "You make it sound like all you have to is create a redirect and — ''voila!'' —it's all done." Yes, it is, in some respects. Any wrong link will go to the correct page, which sorts the main problem - fixing links can then be done over time. Plus, there should be redirect or disambiguation pages, as the case may be, for working titles or common misnamings. And yes, I do know how tedious fixing links can be - but who said you had to be the only one doing it? You see the creation of this page as impatience. It's not. It's human nature, the desire to be up to date combined with the ease of creating something on a wiki. Once people know the name, people are going to want to start filling in the info, adding in new info as it comes out. [[User:Lokiofmidgaard|Lokiofmidgaard]] 22:34, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| | |
| : Did you read what CzechOut said? It takes ages to fix incorrect links, even with them being fixed automatically, and it is both very annoying and tiring. The page will be deleted and locked so that no-one can create it. [[User:The Thirteenth Doctor|The Thirteenth Doctor]] 23:32, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
| | 2. Dodo "was one of only 2 companions left on contemporary earth not mentioned (the other being Melanie Bush)". Mel, on TV was left nowhere remotely near Earth & was with Sabalom Glitz in '''his''' home time, about 2,000,000,000 years from the 20th century. That was her reason/excuse for suggesting that Ace travel with the Doctor -- he could get her back to the 20th century & Glitz couldn't. |
| ::No, wrong links won't necessarily go to the correct page under your idea. There are two things that could happen under your idea of "creating now, move later": | | |
| ::#If we later move ''Death of the Doctor'' to a disambig page, then these links will go to the disambig page, which is a bad link. And the thing is, they'll be harder to notice as errors because they'll be blue links.
| | 3. "This would make this the first on-screen reference to both their real names, Dorothy McShane and Dorothea Chaplet which were established in the novels." This is wrong throughout. |
| ::#If we later move ''Death of the Doctor'' to, let's say, ''The Death of the Doctor'', you say that's basically okay because at least it's still blue-linked to the right page. But I say that's still a problem because the link issue is secondary. Now the article has an ''inaccuracy'' in it. But again, it ''looks'' fine, because there's a blue link. | | ::First, Ace's given name was mentioned (admittedly, only once) in her introductory story ''Dragonfire'', when she confided it to Mel & said it was a "naff name". |
| ::While I understand the point that it might be nice if we allowed lots of alternative links to things, based upon common misspellings — in that it makes searching slightly easier — it has the ''serious'' downside of allowing articles to become populated with blue-links to misspellings, which wholly negates any searching advantage. I mean, it's possible for someone to believe that the name is [[Padraig Trowton]] or even [[John Pertwee]] — and therefore to put that in the search box — but we don't want to allow people that link for [[Patrick Troughton]] and [[Jon Pertwee]]. As an encyclopedia, we do have a duty to be accurate, not ''approximately'' accurate. Likewise, there are plenty of instances where the placement of an article, like "the" or "an", is absolutely critical ''[[The Daleks]]'' is a materially different thing than [[Daleks]], for instance. And we don't want to give the impression that we believe ''[[The Inferno]]'', ''[[The Pyramids of Mars]]'', or ''[[Ribos Operation]]'' are proper titles. Spelling and accuracy "count" here. Allowing approximate titles of topics is the death knell of accuracy. Allow them, and you'll start to see articles absolutely riddled with lots of misspellings being given the "authority" of a blue link. It's fine to shorten a name once you've already established the full name at the top of an article, but you don't need to start the article off on the wrong foot by being allowed to blue link to a misspelling or misnaming. If you wouldn't allow ''[[The Unearthly Child]]'' — and who among us would, really? — then the most sensible thing to do is to wait and '''know for sure''' what the name of the episode actually is. Just because an episode is new doesn't exempt us from taking the same hard line on its allowable redirects that we use for episodes from 50 years ago. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 23:54, June 23, 2010 (UTC) | | |
| | ::Second, Sarah Jane didn't give the surname in ''Death of the Doctor''. As noted above, she said, "Dorothy something". Ace's surname has, therefore, still never been mentioned on screen. |
| | |
| | ::Third, Dodo's full first name was also given in her introductory episode, ''Bell of Doom'' (episode 4 of ''The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve'') by the character herself, when she's introducing herself to Steven & the Doctor. Only the soundtrack survives but it's clear. |
| | |
| | ::Fourth, Dodo's surname was not only given but was also a major point, implying that Anne Chaplet had '''not''' been killed as Steven believed she had. (He was blaming the Doctor for having refused to rescue her). |
| | |
| | Ace's full name has still never been given on screen; Dodo's full name was first given long ago (1966). |
| | |
| | The assertion that "charity work would fit better with her [Dodo's] personality" is a matter of opinion only & is debatable. Ace was clearly shown to have a caring side & fighters (which she certainly was) have been known to take up charity work. Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, springs to mind. |
| | |
| | Given the initials of "A Charitable Earth" (ACE) & point 1, above, there's really not much room to doubt that Ace was meant, not Dodo. --[[Special:Contributions/89.240.242.255|89.240.242.255]]<sup>[[User talk:89.240.242.255#top|talk to me]]</sup> 18:03, October 1, 2012 (UTC) |
| | |
| | I took out all the stuff about Dodo. First, the subtitles say Dorothy on the DVD, and second DWM's Special Edition on the making of Series 4 says it was a reference to Ace. Case closed. [[Special:Contributions/70.72.211.35|70.72.211.35]]<sup>[[User talk:70.72.211.35#top|talk to me]]</sup> 16:20, June 3, 2013 (UTC) |
| | * And someone put it back again, and I took it out again. Once again: the DVD subtitles say Dorothy, the novelisation based upon the script says Dorothy, and the Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition coverage of the making of the episode says Dorothy. Provide one single piece of evidence to suggest the name Dorothea was uttered that countermands those three. [[Special:Contributions/68.146.70.124|68.146.70.124]]<sup>[[User talk:68.146.70.124#top|talk to me]]</sup> 17:25, January 20, 2014 (UTC) |
The item beginning "A companion called Dorothy(ea)" has several problems:
1. The name is clearly given as "Dorothy something" & can't be "Dorothea something".
2. Dodo "was one of only 2 companions left on contemporary earth not mentioned (the other being Melanie Bush)". Mel, on TV was left nowhere remotely near Earth & was with Sabalom Glitz in his home time, about 2,000,000,000 years from the 20th century. That was her reason/excuse for suggesting that Ace travel with the Doctor -- he could get her back to the 20th century & Glitz couldn't.
3. "This would make this the first on-screen reference to both their real names, Dorothy McShane and Dorothea Chaplet which were established in the novels." This is wrong throughout.
- First, Ace's given name was mentioned (admittedly, only once) in her introductory story Dragonfire, when she confided it to Mel & said it was a "naff name".
- Second, Sarah Jane didn't give the surname in Death of the Doctor. As noted above, she said, "Dorothy something". Ace's surname has, therefore, still never been mentioned on screen.
- Third, Dodo's full first name was also given in her introductory episode, Bell of Doom (episode 4 of The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve) by the character herself, when she's introducing herself to Steven & the Doctor. Only the soundtrack survives but it's clear.
- Fourth, Dodo's surname was not only given but was also a major point, implying that Anne Chaplet had not been killed as Steven believed she had. (He was blaming the Doctor for having refused to rescue her).
Ace's full name has still never been given on screen; Dodo's full name was first given long ago (1966).
The assertion that "charity work would fit better with her [Dodo's] personality" is a matter of opinion only & is debatable. Ace was clearly shown to have a caring side & fighters (which she certainly was) have been known to take up charity work. Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, springs to mind.
Given the initials of "A Charitable Earth" (ACE) & point 1, above, there's really not much room to doubt that Ace was meant, not Dodo. --89.240.242.255talk to me 18:03, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
I took out all the stuff about Dodo. First, the subtitles say Dorothy on the DVD, and second DWM's Special Edition on the making of Series 4 says it was a reference to Ace. Case closed. 70.72.211.35talk to me 16:20, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- And someone put it back again, and I took it out again. Once again: the DVD subtitles say Dorothy, the novelisation based upon the script says Dorothy, and the Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition coverage of the making of the episode says Dorothy. Provide one single piece of evidence to suggest the name Dorothea was uttered that countermands those three. 68.146.70.124talk to me 17:25, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
