Talk:Let's Kill Hitler (TV story)

Enemy

I was wondering, could we add the enemy to the infobox? Because we already have the enemy confirmed as the "Tessalecta" (or however you spell it). TheTARDIScontroller 14:46, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

It's not confirmed until the episode broadcasts. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:13, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

<Never mind, looks like I was looking at a cached version of the page>. 74.96.106.141 18:13, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Full cast list

The full cast list had been confirmed:

http://doctorwhotv.co.uk/lets-kill-hitler-cast-gallery-24623.htm

(go to the bottom of the article)

DuduDoctor 08:07, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Again, these things can change upon broadcast, which is why we wait until the broadcast of the episode before adding things like this. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:59, August 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rose, Martha & Donna did technically appear.

Anyone else have a mini fanboy moment when rose popped up?

And Hitler?

Can someone fix this statement "the greatest war criminal in the Universe. And Hitler". First of all the period should be a comma and it's Adolf Hitler not And Hitler

Read it again. It means that the Doctor meets the greatest war criminal in the Universe, and he also meets Hitler. Two different people. DuduDoctor 08:10, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is the official synopsis and it's left as its own sentence for emphasis, not to be grammatically correct.--Skittles the hog - talk 10:15, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone besides me cares about conjunctions being used to join clauses without periods in between, even if that person doesn't care to sign his posts. However, it's much funnier with the period. Boblipton 22:08, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

I used to care, being a Grammar Nazi and all (hah, how about that?), but it's acceptable to now. It's fine, and that's how it's supposed to be anyway. ProtoKun7 19:34, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Locked?

I don't think this article should be locked, and instead semi-protected. Do you not trust users and only admins? I really want to edit this article. Could it just be semi-protected instead? That would be more plausible. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 12:31, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be standard procedure here to lock the article for the week before broadcast. Write the changes and hold them for 60 hours. Boblipton 12:41, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

This is because of our spoiler and protection polices. If you want to edit the page, you can leave your edits/suggests here on the talk where we will review them and add them to the page, judging that they are inside the polices. I do apologise to your for any inconvenience, angry or upset this may cause you. MM/Want to talk? 12:48, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

It's not that you aren't trusted, it's just that registered users in general (myself included) are liable to adding spoilers. I'm not sure what changes you actually what to make that don't offend Tardis:Spoiler policy. The article as it now stands is exactly how it should look prior to broadcast.--Skittles the hog - talk 13:15, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Rumors. Boblipton 13:21, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're talking about the practical side of things, MM, and how a user can respond to a locked page. Looking in it in those terms — put it here and we'll review it for suitability — does tend to make it unintentionally seem like we don't trust our users.

So let me say this quite firmly: It's not a matter of not trusting our users. It's a matter of not trusting Moffat, RTD, the BBC, and anyone else making our favourite shows. They all routinely lie to the press, or the press that is usually right (like DWM) get it wrong, and we're left with egg on our faces. This is an encyclopedia. Our goal is to report accurately on the past. It is not our job to predict or describe the future.

This policy derives from the experience in series 5 where The Vampires of Vemice had a "confirmed" name of The Vampires From Venice just a few days before broadcast. When it turned out to be The Vampires of' Venice, we had to scramble around and change all the links that had been made. It also comes from the experience with The Pandorica Opens, which no one knew was actually the name of a painting in the DWU. Thus, we had to scramble and change references to the TV story to The Pandorica Opens (TV story) in order to comply with disambiguation policy. Moreover, it comes from the many, many times that DWM have apparently been speaking with the authority of the production company, but then turned out to be completely wrong — such as when they recently told us that Esther Drummond was actually Esther Katsui.

The goal of the spoiler policy — which is what's locking this article — is to prevent people from wasting a lot of time with misinformation apparently supplied by a reliable source. While it's very unlikely that the name of this well-publicised ep will change at broadcast, it is possible that Let's Kill Hitler is the name of a book or movie in the episode. Personally, I think the article has been created prematurely. I don't even think it should exist in a locked form at this point. I think it shouldn't be started until — at the earliest — the credits roll on the premiere broadcast on BBC One. That way, it will have been possible to have seen the title flash on the screen.

Think of this policy as the "Peter Davidson Rule" — after the time when Peter Davison was famously said to be Peter Davidson on the cover of DWM, prior to the transmission of his first episode. If DWM can make a typo with such a well-known actor — and on a cover that proclaimed them an award-winning magazine, no less — then they simply cannot be trusted as accurate spellers. Spelling is at the very heart of a wiki, because links depend upon having the precisely correct spelling of a topic. Waiting until an episode is broadcast won't completely eliminate our spelling errors, but it does give us at least the chance of getting the article name correct from the start.

Thus, the basic principle at work here is that mistakes are minimised if the episode page is closed until it's possible that someone will have actually seen the story.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 13:21:11 Thu 25 Aug 2011 

[This message has been attempted two times, both times encountering an edit conflict. Apologies if it doesn't flow from the previous comment as originally intended.]

Czechout, it seems to me that the reasons you cite for locking the main articles about stories until they actually run is a good idea. If it is not already some place in to which people can be referred, it would be a good idea to write it up and place it. Boblipton 22:55, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Main image to be an episode still

I think until tommorow, we should add an episode still for the main image, don't you agree? Here's one I had in mind: BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 16:03, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather wait 24 hours than add a low quality image. It's not like there's any rush to create a superb pre-broadcast article. This should just sit as the framework, ready for the post-broadcast edits to flood in.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:07, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to argue with you Skittles, but 1) I sorta agree with BroadcastCorp and 2) Honestly, that pic he put up is actually really good quality. TheTARDIScontroller 00:30, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Just wait; there's only a day to go, and it's not like there's a rush, is there? --Bold Clone 01:31, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, I wasn't knocking the actual "quality" of the image - as in, how non-blurry, grainy etc. it was, but rather the content. I'm sure there will be many, many images that better sum up the episode.--Skittles the hog - talk 07:10, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect this article?

This article deperately needs to be semi-protected, or for short, protected. It's a high traffic page. I'm depending on an admin to do this. BroadcastCorp (talk | contribs) 20:24, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the new Torchwood story didn't, so we've decide to see what happens to this page when it's not protected straight after broadcast. There never any need to single out new and unregistered Users. This is to make every one feel equal and feel they can edit the page. MM/Want to talk? 21:20, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Gun

Now I may be wrong, but I'm sure that the gun that hittler pulls out of his belt, is a standard german officers lugar, but when rory is holding it, its a revolver, is that a production error, or did I just miss see it? General MGD 109 21:17, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, Hitler draws the revolver. Why Hitler would carry a revolver that looks like a British model, no idea, nor do I remember Hitler ever carrying a side arm.Var'jhar'rai 02:28, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Production errors

The entry on production errors is wrong. The gun in use is a revolver, not a semi-automatic, which means the empty brass stays in the drum instead of ejecting the spent brass. Hitler fires his shots, the doctor then removes the brass from the drum, effectively unloading the revolver. The brass we get to see in the unloading scene is actually empty. Var'jhar'rai 02:31, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Gun with bullets in it NOT a production error

Just because he fired bullets doesn't mean it should be empty. For those who aren't familiar with how guns work, the shell stays in the gun. And if you look closely, some of the shells are show themselves empty when the doctor empties them. The production error should be removed. Rawrgoaway 05:54, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

References to non-canon 'Curse of Fatal Death'?

Haven't stuck this in because I'm not sure whether 'non-canon' sources count etc, but I think it may be worth mentioning that the whole "I know that you know" conversation between River and the Doctor in this episode is reminiscient of a similar exchange between the Doctor and the Master in the Moffat penned 'The Curse of Fatal Death' Baziel 14:25, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of people who want to force 'Curse' into Canon. It's a lot of fun, but c'mon. Boblipton 03:42, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

That's why I highlighted that I wasn't sure if it counted (and hence why I put it here and not on the actual article). I'm certainly not trying to 'force it into canon' (is anyone really trying to do that? - c'mon, that would be ridiculous. lol) I just think the fact the same writer has used the same narrative trick before (and under the same banner) might have been worth a mention. It's perfectly fine that it's not allowed under canon policy ;-)Baziel 19:40, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Car Mels steals

I wrote that it was a Ferrari. Someone just changed it to a Corvette. I'm not a car guy, but if there's someone around who is and can confirm one way or t'other....Boblipton 03:44, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Though it's in a shade of red often associated with Ferraris, it's definitely not one. I'm sure there are a couple of shots in the episode when you can see the badge and they make a point of it in the confidential - it's a Chevrolet Corvette Stingray . Baziel 19:52, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Baziel's right. It's a Corvette. 173.174.212.164 00:02, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Sound Effects

I'm not sure anyone is going to back me up on this, but I just watched Mels's entrance side-by-side with Amy's first encounter with the star whale in The Beast Below and as I suspected, the sound effects for the car "striking" the Doctor and the star whale's tentacle thing striking the ground are identical. As far as I know that sound is only used in those two episodes so I was wondering if it's worth mentioning... KalebPSpector 22:47, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

For the last several decades, the BBC has been collecting and compliling sound effects. It is no surprise that something as generic as a "car strike" could be repeated. All BBC productions have access to the same sound FX library, and using a "stock sound" is often less expensive and more effecient for the audio engineers. Pay close attention, and you'll notice several repetitions of screams, crowd noise, and foley effects etc. across all BBC productions. DoctorOfWho 22:58, August 30, 2011 (UTC) 75.174.8.105 22:56, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

musical cues

As River roars away on the motorcycle, there is a heavy beat that sounds like it may be a reference to the theme from the TV show Mission Impossible. Contrariwise, it may simply be one of Murray Gold's stings. Does anyone but me feel the former? Boblipton ^{talk to me} 01:45, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

An error I noticed

The last sentence on the first paragraph of the page states that this is the first time the doctor dies and is not able to regenerate. This is incorrect. The ninth doctor was eaten and then resurrected in the episode Father's Day.

Enemies - River?

I noticed that River has been moved out of the 'enemy' box and into 'companion'. I disagree with this; despite the fact that she's a companion in every other episode, she actively tries to kill the Doctor throughout this episode and nearly succeeds. Because of those actions, shouldn't she be classed as an 'enemy'? By this logic, she should also be removed from the 'featuring' tab from Silence In The Library and it's succeeding episode and moved into the companions tab, as she's being a lot less murderous and a lot more helpful (due to her experience as a companion) in those episodes then in this one.

110.175.3.245^{talk to me} 05:18, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Paradox

Would there be a paradox for the fact that no one let Hitler out of the closet.24.2.243.22^{talk to me} 23:35, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter? Paradoxes are something fairly normal in the Doctor Who. But I can't see how one would be created. They travelled back in time, locked Hitler in a closet and left him there. What difference does that make? Hitler in the closet isn't why they travel back to WWII in the first place, and it doesn't affect their timeline in any real way. Besides, it's not like he's locked in the closet and left their to starve to death, changing the future in all sorts of crazy ways. It's not like they are the only people who can remove him, it's a closet. I can't see any paradox here, and even if there was one I'm not sure it would be worth starting on the article page. Remember, that's what this talk page is for, to discuss the related article. Anoted ☎ 00:18, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it I agree