|
|
| (48 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Talk}} | | {{ArchCat}} |
| == OK to create? ==
| |
| | |
| Granted there won't be much of an infobox, but seeing as the BBC already has the preview up and that [[Prequel (The Wedding of River Song)|it's here]] already shouldn't the episode page be up as well? Or are we just waiting for 1) the actual showing or 2) an admin to create it?{{unsigned|68.235.235.5}}
| |
| | |
| :Well, generally the page is created on the day of broadcast as there really isn't a need for it to exist except as a skeleton, ready to have some meat chucked on it. However, nothing seems set in stone and, as you can see, the page has been created.--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 13:10, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I vaguely recall during the first part of this season the pages being posted as a skeleton with the BBC synopsis and any Cited Rumors, but I saw that those now fall under Spoilers [[Special:Contributions/167.142.212.235|167.142.212.235]] 20:42, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| ::Just to amplify Skittles' point, there is, under our current policies, '''zero''' need to create a story page prior to first broadcast. While [[The Wedding of River Song]] was ''briefly'' created, it was swiftly deleted. So long as we have a policy whereby story names can be un-disambiguated ''unless'' a DWU topic of the same name exists, we'll have to wait to see each episode to verify whether the episode title names a ''thing'' in the DWU. For instance, no one knew that ''[[The Pandorica Opens]]'' was actually a painting, until that episode was aired. Because we had the story page already created at [[The Pandorica Opens]], we had to move it to [[The Pandorica Opens (TV story)]], in order to allow ''The Pandorica Opens'' to be the place for the painting.
| |
| | |
| ::If we had a more sensible disambiguation policy, which simply said that '''all story names had to be disambiguated by media type''', this wouldn't be an issue, and we could create story pages much earlier. In other words, we '''could''' force TV story pages to be created as [[Episode (TV story)]], but allow '''redirects''' of the format [[Episode]] (so long as [[Episode]] wasn't a topic in the DWU). If we did this, story titles would be predictable, instead of the current hodgepodge. Under the current policy, some are like [[Castrovalva (TV story)]] and some are like [[An Unearthly Child]].
| |
| | |
| ::It's no exaggeration to say that you need a scorecard to remember how the story pages are titled. Now, you might not think so if you '''only''' consider television. Long term editors, at least, tend to have memorised which TV story titles are disambiguated and which aren't. I don't think it makes too much immediate sense to newer editors, but people still have a pretty good chance of having seen the episodes in question. The situation is '''much worse''' with other media, however. I'm constantly finding articles which need to be disambiguated because the people who started the article hadn't actually read or heard the story, so they had no idea that — to take an example from yesterday's bot work — [[Red]] is a thing in the DWU, which is the focus of [[Red (audio story)]].
| |
| | |
| ::When you look at the '''entirety''' of the story titling chore on this wiki, the need for automatic disambiguation is much more profound. And it needn't change the way we write articles. People think that if we go to an all-disambiguated format that we're going to increase the number of keystrokes necessary to refer to a story. '''But that absolutely needn't be so.''' For instance, we'd formally change the name of An Unearthly Child to [[An Unearthly Child (TV story)]]. But you'd still be able to link to [[An Unearthly Child]], because the act of moving would leave a redirect behind. This proposed system would in fact be no different to the current system, except in terms of what appeared on top of story pages. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">15:19: Sat 01 Oct 2011 </span>
| |
| | |
| :::By the way, if you're frustrated by how we've handled this page's creation, and would like to change how we handle all this, please go to [[Forum:Story names should be automatically disambiguated]] and vote to change the [[tardis:disambiguation policy|disambiguation policy]]. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">16:18: Sat 01 Oct 2011 </span>
| |
| | |
| == Lock page please ==
| |
| | |
| Could whoever has the power please lock this page for only registered users to edit, as someone keeps vandalising it. [[User:Howling Snail|Howling Snail]] <sup>[[User talk:Howling Snail|talk to me]]</sup> 20:12, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| Somebody is messing around with The Wedding Of River Song page, putting crape nothing to do with the page, eveeytime i try to remove it, it put more rubbish on it.
| |
| | |
| == Los Angeles? ==
| |
| | |
| This is categorised as a "story set in Los Angeles". Is this an error, or a really brief bit that's easy to miss? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 22:02, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :The live chess scene is apparently set in Los Angeles, got a source. [http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/the-wedding-of-river-song-round-up-26912.htm], scroll down and read through the teasers, and you will find one that says "The Chess Pits of Vegas". I premused this meant Las Vegas. Either, it is or it's not. I may have clicked and type something in by mistake, but I just assumed by reading "Vegas" it was set there... and I just realised Las Vegas is not in Los Angeles... my bad. [[User:Mini-mitch|MM]]/<small>[[User talk:Mini-mitch|Want to talk?]]</small> 22:08, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :: Or "Vegas" is the name of a planet in some far-flung corner of the universe. [[User:Raven's wing|Raven's wing]] <sup>[[User talk:Raven's wing|talk to me]]</sup> 22:09, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Parallels ==
| |
| | |
| Is it worth including the parallel of Amy's actions with Kovarian and River's with the Dalek from ''The Big Bang''?
| |
| | |
| - [[User:Byfield|Byfield]] <sup>[[User talk:Byfield|talk to me]]</sup> 01:28, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| I think that if these are worth mentioned, they should be in either story notes or continuity. Story notes to my taste. [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 03:52, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Definitely worth mentioning, especially given Amy's line about River not getting all of her personality from Kovarian. Also, that both episodes ended in weddings should be mentioned; this probably goes back to literary theory about ancient comedy (at least New Comedy, if not necessarily Attic Old Comedy) and Shakespearean comedy, which very frequently ended with a wedding. Also, Kovarian is tied up, seated, in Area 52 in front of a "DO NOT INTERACT WITH THE PRISONER" sign like the Doctor was in [[Area 51]] during [[Day of the Moon]]. [[Special:Contributions/98.180.51.124|98.180.51.124]] 18:04, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Timeline placement ==
| |
| Someone put that this story, for the Doctor, takes place before Death is the Only Answer. I think it's a bit silly to use the mini-episode -which may not even be canon - as a benchmark. There is nothing in DITOA to suggest it takes place after this episode; it could take place during the 200 year gap. For all we know the Christmas special may take place immediately following. I suggest it be removed and either TBA or "2011 Christmas Special" be used instead. [[Special:Contributions/68.146.80.110|68.146.80.110]] 04:47, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| I agree that it should be removed, and replaced with TBA or something similar. Nothing in DITOA indicates the time setting. [[User:Rob.haigh|Haigh21]] <sup>[[User talk:Rob.haigh|talk to me]]</sup> 10:45, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| I thought it was placed after The Big Bang because he remarks about River blowing up the TARDIS and the fez thing. [[User:Gryffindor1991|Gryffindor1991]] 14:27, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == The Brigadier ==
| |
| | |
| Why does this page say that the Brigadier died in the 2050s? I know that technically nothing in the episode contradicts the novels that say that he lived to the 2050s, but the implication in the episode really seems to be that the nurse the Doctor was talking to was in 2011, and the Brigadier had died around the same time that Nicholas Courtney died in real life. Why don't we just treat this the way we treat other characters whose fates are contradicted in different media, and mention that there are different versions of the Brigadier's fate, and assume that there are alternate timelines or something like that. [[User:Icecreamdif|Icecreamdif]] <sup>[[User talk:Icecreamdif|talk to me]]</sup> 18:22, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
| |
| :That's what I got as well. I mean he if died in the 2050's, why can't the Doctor see him in 2011? I was thinking he was inviting him to Utah. -- [[User:Deb1701|Confused again]]
| |
