Talk:The Poison Sky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthew (talk | contribs) at 10:58, 6 May 2008 (commented). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDoctor Who Stub‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image

As this is the second part of a two episode story, I think it is ok to use the same image as on the first part. I have added a fair use rational to the image for this story. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it would be nice to have the same caption on both, dont you think? --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way. If you feel strongly enough then change one to match. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... And I've removed the image from the article. You're simply depicting what a Sontaran looks like. Please see WP:NFCC. Matthew (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the policy and think that use of this picture is justified. The story has been split into two parts so the fact that the picture is from part one does not justify removal either; it is the same character filmed at the same time. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the image is justified? How does the image's presence significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic? The image merely depicts what they look like. Matthew (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

linking to first part of story

Although there is a link in the info box. The fact that this is a two-parter means that the link to the first part should be in the leader. It adds to the article and does not create redundancy. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the custom; none of the other two- (or three-) parters have have links to eachother in the lead. — Edokter • Talk • 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the other articles but I would suggest that they should. Casual readers should not have to search for closely related information. BTW Thanks for improving the wording, quotes etc. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, AOG/DD do, Utopia/TSOD/LOTTL do, and HN/FOB do. Sceptre (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only AOG/DD have links in the lead. — Edokter • Talk • 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC and image

Well, it had to happen... I've replaced the image, and now discussion takes place as per WP:BRD - not another revert, please. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being bold here, I'm enforcing a Wikipedia policy. I do hope you'll honour your own request though. Why do you think the image is justified? How does the image's presence significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic? The image merely depicts what a Sontaran looks like. Matthew (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you describe what a Sontaran looks like without it? And why do you think that edit-warring is the way to go? Nobody will sue us if we leave the image there for a couple of days, and if they do, I'll pay up personally. How's that? Again, if you revert one more time it constitutes a bad-faith edit as discussion is important. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't describing what a Sontaran looks like, it's simply depicting a Sontaran. On the subject of edit warring: I could ask you the same question. It takes two to tango. Hopefully you will (again) heed your own advice and continue discussion here before reverting again, which constinues a violation of policy. Matthew (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That, and it's from TSS, not PoiSky... and there are way better images from the trailer you can use. Sceptre (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, change it then, but edit-warring is disallowed on this encyclopedia, as I expect Sceptre if not Matty knows. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, "edit-warring is disallowed"... why are you edit warring. Matthew (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree with Matthew. This is decorative fair use, seeing as the image is not discussed at all. He can revert as many times as he likes to delete it and I, for one, will not block him. As for his opponents, however...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so the WP:3RR doesn't apply to your friends, then? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please shorted your signature, posting on this talk page is ridiculously difficult.
Right. WP:3RR states that removing clear NFCC violations is an exception to the policy. Your judgment as to what constitutes an NFCC violations has been proved before on these articles to be very faulty. You objecting does not mean the image is not a clear violation. It is. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Please look at thiss image, which is part of policy. Now, the box on the left is "make an edit", which is where you removed the image. The bit below is "reverted?" - we go down the yes branch to "happy?" - you naturally go down the no branch which leads to "discuss". Not "revert again". "Discuss" - why did you revert again? I'm undoing what you're up to so as to enforce policy. Why are you flouting the process in that flow-chart? Or doesn't it apply to people with a t as the third letter of their username? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to discussion and will continue to talk here. There's been nothing stopping you from not reverting, which I would have preferred. Please answer the questions I asked before: "Why do you think the image is justified? How does the image's presence significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic?" Matthew (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered before, at 15.54 according to my timestamp. Go back and read over it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "How do you describe what a Sontaran looks like without it?" I'm not sure that answers why you believe the image is justified, or how the "image's presence significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is that an image illustrates something that can't be communicated by words, and something that is integral and inseparable from the subject of the article. Like the Sontarans and their characteristics, for example. But go ahead, put some effort in and install a new one. Or are you just interested in being negative and exercising your "delete" key? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd look like a pink weasel to the Sontarans. Sceptre (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should, at least, wait for the episode to air. DonQuixote (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is the main focus of the episode the Sontarans? - Yes
  2. Is this an image of a Sontaran as it will be seen in the forthcoming episode? - Yes
  3. Is the article better with an image? - Yes
  4. Is the chosen image the best one possible at the current time? - No
  5. Is the chosen image the best currently available on wikipedia? - Yes
  6. Would the copyright holder (if he/she/it could be contacted) object to its use on wikipedia? - I doubt it
  7. Is it worth an edit war over, quoting and counter-quoting WP? - Of course not
We must take copyright seriously and as far as using screen-shot BBC images goes it would be great if we could have a statement from the BBC that "low-resoulution unaltered screen-shots could be used on wikipedia". Has anyone attempted to get such a statement?
In the absence of this statement we have to make a value judgement. Either it is OK (As I suspect) in which case we use them, or it isn't - in which case we don't use ANY.
Assuming it is OK to use it, the question then is does it add to the article or detract from it?
There are three questions.
  1. Can it be used when it comes from a different episode? My answer is YES, the episode is a continuation of the story with the same characters, filmed at the same time.
  2. Is this character the central focus of the story or a bit player? It is obviously central to the plot.
  3. Does it matter what the character looks like? Well the look of the character is referred to repeatedly in the story and of high significance

Until a better picture is available I propose that this picture is used. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Has anyone attempted to get such a statement?" - I wouldn't hold your breath - it doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that the BBC will give out without a tonne of legal issues their end... TalkIslander 17:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we having this argument again? The last time this happened I had my rollback rights taken away because i misused them, put the image back! and by the way Matthew you reverted the artical 3 times in one day on the 29th you have violated the 3RR rule.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I quite like the picture on there now (or at least the concept of the picture - perhaps a slightly better screencap could be taken?). It's unique to the episode, shows something that happened - illustrates the episode perfectly. TalkIslander 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Doctor Who's Tardis wrecked by Scots director. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks for that. Anyone want to add it in? —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "wrecked" is quite a distorted interpretation; Apparently, the mechanish that moves the console up and down failed and was repaired in half an hour. — Edokter • Talk • 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hand in the jar

I think somebody ought to explain the context (I would but I'm not good at explaining things!). 'the doctors hand in the jar bubbles' isnt exactly reader friendly. Especially if he/she isnt familiar with doctor who. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved...the hand has been linked! --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

"The Martha clone and Luke both threaten the Doctor with a pistol (in the clone room and the Rattigan Academy respectively). This is either a continuity error or an ignorant mistake on the part of the characters, in that in the previous episode these rooms were both covered by cordolane signals which would render such firearms useless" - The presence of the cordolane signal is clearly tied to the presence of the Sontarans as it 'follows' them through the corridors when they enconter UNIT later in the episode. As Sontarans were not present when Martha Clone and Luke threaten the Dr this is perfectly viable.Eventex1 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't paying that much attention but I had the impression that a 'cordolane signal' was installed in some rooms not anything to do with the sontarans...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty child reference removed

  • The Doctor refers to the events of the first series' episode "The Empty Child" when he says "Are you my mummy?" to the colonel whilst wearing a gas mask.

The previous statement was removed as OR. Does anyone have a source? To me the whole thing sounds rather ridiculous. In my opinion I think it is obvious to what the statement 'Are you my mummy' refers and I would thus have kept the statement. What are your views!?--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Obvious" is original research. Matthew (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be kidding (responding to Cameron, not Matthew. I'm putting that back. There is no way that is OR, unless you have never watched Doctor Who. If you want to look silly, put a "citation needed" tag on it and watch the dozens of sources pour in. I'm putting it back. At the very least, let's seek consensus before taking out this piece of information. 23skidoo (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have done so but I didnt wish to engage in an edit war...As I said it is obvious to a regular viewer = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." However, as you claim that the "[citations will] pour in", I'll tag it with {{cn}} and give it a few days. Matthew (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow is White[Citation needed]

There is a fine line between Original Research and Common Sense. We can cite "The Empty Child" itself if need be (and already linked to), but this discussion is bordering on rediculous... — Edokter • Talk • 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
The fact snow is white is unlikely to be challenged (I wouldn't object to it being cited, however). The assumption that The Doctor is referencing "The Empty Child" has been challenged. Matthew (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, "The Empty Child" does not backup the claim that The Doctor is referencing said episode in "The Poison Sky". There should be no problem providing a reliable secondary source if the claim is true. Matthew (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox cast order

This was a judgement call on my part. Although Piper's credit does appear near the beginning, the fact she appears on screen for less than one second, I feel, justifies putting those with more screen time in the cast list ahead of her. If there's any objection, feel free to revert. I feel more strongly about the "are you my mummy?" removal above, anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea...whilst she is generally an important character, her importance to this specific episode is minimal. Thanks using your common sense = )--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the BBC's lead on this; if Billy is billed on top, then that's where she will be. We should not be assessing her screen time or any other factor for that matter; it technically breaks neutral point of view. — Edokter • Talk • 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Poison_Sky&oldid=210541453"