→Rory = companion ?: WP:DEADLINE (and bad joke re: Upper Boat and its ruler...) |
|||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
::::::[[Upper Boat]] doesn't have a king, it has a [[K-9 (Doctor Who)|Top Dog]] ;-) |
::::::[[Upper Boat]] doesn't have a king, it has a [[K-9 (Doctor Who)|Top Dog]] ;-) |
||
::::::Surely [[WP:DEADLINE]] applies here? There shouldn't need to be any rush to label Rory as a companion; we can do so once there's [[WP:CON|consensus]] that a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] has been found. (I'm [[WP:OR|personally]] convinced Rory's a companion, but I'm not [[WP:RS|reliable]]). Cheers, [[User:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TFOWR|<span style="color:#f00">This flag once was red</span>]]</sup> 15:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC) |
::::::Surely [[WP:DEADLINE]] applies here? There shouldn't need to be any rush to label Rory as a companion; we can do so once there's [[WP:CON|consensus]] that a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] has been found. (I'm [[WP:OR|personally]] convinced Rory's a companion, but I'm not [[WP:RS|reliable]]). Cheers, [[User:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TFOWR|<span style="color:#f00">This flag once was red</span>]]</sup> 15:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I would say that Rory is considering that he has done far more than say 'Jackie Tyler' who is listed as a companion, as in he travels with the Doctor last weekend and assume again this week although it's far too weird, and the 2 parter, so that is a month of travling. So by the definitions written on here, traveled yes, more than one episode yes, far less tedious than some of the other claims for companions seen. There's a couple of these discussions so you'll have to look. A couple of sources say yes and 1 mentions 3 and assumes Rory is with out confirmation. But to be fair the 'reliable source' arguement is rubbish, as it is only the tabloid backends who mention it. The BBC and broadsheets are hardly going to mention them as a companion unless it is headlined as a new companion for the whole sereis and a big name. Rory was mentioned as being Amy's other half and that was about it. So since the press already mentioned him, why would they run a seperate story stating the upgrade? KnowIG 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== "The" == |
== "The" == |
Revision as of 21:33, 10 May 2010
![]() | Doctor Who Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
Toby Whithouse
Credit him as the creator of Being Human as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 13:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Title
Looks like the preposition may be different, apparently Radio Times titles this as 'Vampires of Venice'. I've made a redirect from that, at tleast. Radagast (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also, according to the Gallifrey Base news page, both the BBC preview discs and Toby Whithouse have named the episode as 'Vampires of Venice'. 86.166.212.201 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Rory = companion ?
Well I know we shouldn't do OR, but we know the episode is in the past, and Rory is in it. So we can assume he travels in the TARDIS for that one. Hektor (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well can we? Perhaps he travels in time by another means (Capt. Jack's bracelet, somethink like the Weeping Angels, make one up), and the Doctor and Amy go and rescue him. However, we warned that companion status can be very contrivesial, and a reliable source saying that xyz is a companion in an episode is normally needed. Edgepedia (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Technically, there won't be anything we can do until the BBC Press Office is updated in two weeks time for Week 19. But, we know that Rory does travel with the Doctor and Amy in the TARDIS in Vampires of Venice as a wedding present, according to the script. Also, he's apparently a companion until Episode 9, which makes sense given that clip in the recent trailer with him and two other people beside him which seems a bit more like "We're drilling into Earth and have been confronted by reptilians/Silurians/whatever", than any other episode... Ramble over. 81.154.8.174 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC Press Office release is clear : "the Doctor takes Amy and Rory for a romantic mini-break, as the Tardis touches down once again.
- But 17th-century Venice is not as it should be."
- I think that seals it. Hektor (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lots of people have travelled in the TARDIS, they're not all companions. Jackie in Army of Ghosts, the two younger crew members in Waters of Mars, you get the idea. It would appear that Rory does not travel with the Doctor between this episode and Amy's Choice (and it doesn't seem that Amy does either for that matter), and so without official sources there is nothing to say he can be considered a companion here until the episode has broadcast. If he does indeed travel with Doc/Amy until episode 9 than this will probably be considered the start of his companion run, but there's no rush to pre-empt things we don't know for sure. U-Mos (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Rory Williams travels in the TARDIS, he is a character according to DWM 421 at least in episodes 6, 7, 8 and 9. He is in the TARDIS at least in episodes 6 and 7 according to the summaries of BBC and DWM 421. The characters you mention in your counter examples are travelling only once. 86.196.44.34 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- The role of companion is vague, just look at the Companion (Doctor Who) article. Is Adelaide Brooke a companion in "The Waters of Mars"? What about Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart? Trying to define what a companion is, and then fitting someone into that category is uncertain and nearly always orginial research. Therefore, in these cases we need a reliable source saying some is a companion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Edgepedia is correct. There is no hard-and-fast rule about what makes a character a companion. We have to rely on what reliable sources say — in this case, we should wait until we have an RS calling him a companion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC Press Office release is clear, again : "It's 2015 (...) the Doctor, Amy and Rory arrive in a tiny mining village and find themselves plunged into a battle against a deadly danger from a bygone age." Travels in the TARDIS, to his relative past, 1580, then to the future, 2015. Appears in four consecutive episodes, 6 to 9.
- At the end of the episode, Amy asks Rory to stay and travel with them. The episode itself is the source. If the episode itself cannot be the source, why do you keep the plots in the individual episode articles ? they are all entirely lacking reliable sources if you don't accept the episode as a source. Hektor (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC Press Office release is clear, again : "It's 2015 (...) the Doctor, Amy and Rory arrive in a tiny mining village and find themselves plunged into a battle against a deadly danger from a bygone age." Travels in the TARDIS, to his relative past, 1580, then to the future, 2015. Appears in four consecutive episodes, 6 to 9.
- Edgepedia is correct. There is no hard-and-fast rule about what makes a character a companion. We have to rely on what reliable sources say — in this case, we should wait until we have an RS calling him a companion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- The role of companion is vague, just look at the Companion (Doctor Who) article. Is Adelaide Brooke a companion in "The Waters of Mars"? What about Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart? Trying to define what a companion is, and then fitting someone into that category is uncertain and nearly always orginial research. Therefore, in these cases we need a reliable source saying some is a companion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Rory Williams travels in the TARDIS, he is a character according to DWM 421 at least in episodes 6, 7, 8 and 9. He is in the TARDIS at least in episodes 6 and 7 according to the summaries of BBC and DWM 421. The characters you mention in your counter examples are travelling only once. 86.196.44.34 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Lots of people have travelled in the TARDIS, they're not all companions. Jackie in Army of Ghosts, the two younger crew members in Waters of Mars, you get the idea. It would appear that Rory does not travel with the Doctor between this episode and Amy's Choice (and it doesn't seem that Amy does either for that matter), and so without official sources there is nothing to say he can be considered a companion here until the episode has broadcast. If he does indeed travel with Doc/Amy until episode 9 than this will probably be considered the start of his companion run, but there's no rush to pre-empt things we don't know for sure. U-Mos (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC Press Office release is clear : "the Doctor takes Amy and Rory for a romantic mini-break, as the Tardis touches down once again.
- Technically, there won't be anything we can do until the BBC Press Office is updated in two weeks time for Week 19. But, we know that Rory does travel with the Doctor and Amy in the TARDIS in Vampires of Venice as a wedding present, according to the script. Also, he's apparently a companion until Episode 9, which makes sense given that clip in the recent trailer with him and two other people beside him which seems a bit more like "We're drilling into Earth and have been confronted by reptilians/Silurians/whatever", than any other episode... Ramble over. 81.154.8.174 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
< I don't recall the word "companion" being used in the episode. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note, the episodes themselves can't be used in this situation because doing so would be interpretive. DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- My point exactly! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then why do you have a totally unsourced episode summary ? Any sentence in it is interpretive. I take any innocent sentence at random. For instance : ... the Doctor sneaks into the school, where he is ambushed by five beautiful girls. What is your source to say they are beautiful ? By which standards ? Isn't it OR ? How do we know it is an ambush ? Do we have a source to say it is in a school ? or that they are really five ? Hektor (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) WP:COMMONSENSE applies. We can count five girls, the Doctor describes them as beautiful, and the institution is clearly established as a school. Are you claiming that there were not five of them, for instance? There is no way of uncontroversially defining "companion" in the same way that we can define "five" – ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Companion = travels in time and space, on board the TARDIS, with the Doctor, for two or more consecutive episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs)
- Interesting—because according to the BBC, Adelaide was a companion, and she doesn't meet your exacting criterion. So you are wrong, and the judgement is not as easy as you think. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have a look at Necessary and sufficient condition. My criterion is sufficient. Not necessary. Hektor (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your "criterion" isn't even sufficient. See Fallacy of the undistributed middle. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have a look at Necessary and sufficient condition. My criterion is sufficient. Not necessary. Hektor (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting—because according to the BBC, Adelaide was a companion, and she doesn't meet your exacting criterion. So you are wrong, and the judgement is not as easy as you think. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Companion = travels in time and space, on board the TARDIS, with the Doctor, for two or more consecutive episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs)
- (edit conflict) WP:COMMONSENSE applies. We can count five girls, the Doctor describes them as beautiful, and the institution is clearly established as a school. Are you claiming that there were not five of them, for instance? There is no way of uncontroversially defining "companion" in the same way that we can define "five" – ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then why do you have a totally unsourced episode summary ? Any sentence in it is interpretive. I take any innocent sentence at random. For instance : ... the Doctor sneaks into the school, where he is ambushed by five beautiful girls. What is your source to say they are beautiful ? By which standards ? Isn't it OR ? How do we know it is an ambush ? Do we have a source to say it is in a school ? or that they are really five ? Hektor (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- My point exactly! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
< OK, I'm bored and profoundly uninterested in all that logic crap. This is not a debating forum. If you cannot provide a reliable source which explicitly states that Rory is a companion, then he will not be listed as a companion in the article. Five editors, one of whom is an admin, agree that this is the correct policy position, so you will simply have to cope with that. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 15:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok so it's WP:OWN after all. Thanks and have fun with your Tag team. Hektor (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions has him as companion for these four episodes, and he's in Category:Doctor Who companions. Either those should be reversed, or whatever reasoning led to those choices should apply here and he should be included as a companion. Radagast (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh - scotch that! I have a reliable external source, the site A Brief History of Time (Travel). See here. Radagast (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The doesn't look reliable. magnius (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my original argument stands for this increasingly silly dispute. I now wash my hands of it. Radagast (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- As was mentioned in another thread (series vs seasons), Wikipedia articles can't start something (calling something a "season" or calling someone a "companion"), we can only reflect what reliable sources are doing. DonQuixote (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have gone through the article Mickey Smith. It is said that he is a companion. he briefly joins the TARDIS crew as the Tenth Doctor's second companion in the 2006 series There is no source provided. So what is the difference ? Hektor (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, my original argument stands for this increasingly silly dispute. I now wash my hands of it. Radagast (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
We have these sources:
- "DOCTOR WHO TO HAVE TWO NEW ASSISTANTS". Daily Star. 3 Feburary 2010.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)- It's the Daily Star(?), and it describes them as assistants
- "DOCTOR WHO: The Tardis Will Be Getting Crowded – Add Three New Companions And … A Drunk Giraffe". scifimafia.com. 9 Feburary 2010.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)- Source is the Daily Star and DigitalSpy, and it's a blog
- "Three New Companions For Doctor Who". Sky TV. 3 Feburary 2010.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)- "Luckily, we've got the scoop", i.e they're quoting a rumour, source is the Daily Star.
- Dan Martin (8 May 2010). "Doctor Who: The Vampires Of Venice - series 31, episode six".
{{cite news}}
: Text "guardian.co.uk blog" ignored (help)- "the introduction of Rory as a Tardis regular"
- "Doctor Who: Meet Amy's bloke Rory". whatsontv.co.uk. 7 May 2010.
- How does it feel to be a fully signed-up companion now?
- How does it feel to be a fully signed-up companion now?
"Great! Not many men get to travel with the Doctor so I feel very proud. Steven Moffat has written a great story for Rory."
So we have rumours before transmission (probably the weakest), and descriptions of Rory as an assistant, TARDIS regular. The last one is a leading question ... any of them reliable? Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I never see the Daily Star as reliable, Digital Spy really depends on where they are getting their story. Up until now we seem to have used the idea that the actors name must appear in the opening credits...go against this and we have to review a lot of people such as The Brigadier who BBC themselves list as a companion, but still seems to be a figure of debate on wiki. magnius (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The last one looks reliable to me. It's about time we sorted this one way or another at any rate. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- (1) As far as I'm concerned, it is sorted out, at least until the consensus changes. (2) I don't consider the last one of those reliable; it's one tabloid journalist's take on what companion status is. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- (1) Reading both this discussion and the one at WT:WikiProject Doctor Who#Rory a companion?, there seem to be a lot of diverse views regarding everything from reliability of sources to the definition of a companion. I don't really see a consensus on either issue. You are correct that it shouldn't be changed until consensus is firmly on one side, but that's very different from the issues already being sorted out, which they don't appear to be. (2) The last source isn't just what a tabloid journalist thinks, but appears to be endorsed by the actor! Alzarian16 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know what it says, I read it, that's how I was able to comment. The term "companion" is only introduced based on the journalist's assumption that Rory is a companion. True, the actor doesn't leap to correct the interviewer, but that alone is not sufficient basis for anything. Suppose someone had said to Matt Smith, "So, what's it like being the King of Upper Boat?" – that wouldn't mean anything, even if Smith didn't literally deny it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Upper Boat doesn't have a king, it has a Top Dog ;-)
- Surely WP:DEADLINE applies here? There shouldn't need to be any rush to label Rory as a companion; we can do so once there's consensus that a reliable source has been found. (I'm personally convinced Rory's a companion, but I'm not reliable). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that Rory is considering that he has done far more than say 'Jackie Tyler' who is listed as a companion, as in he travels with the Doctor last weekend and assume again this week although it's far too weird, and the 2 parter, so that is a month of travling. So by the definitions written on here, traveled yes, more than one episode yes, far less tedious than some of the other claims for companions seen. There's a couple of these discussions so you'll have to look. A couple of sources say yes and 1 mentions 3 and assumes Rory is with out confirmation. But to be fair the 'reliable source' arguement is rubbish, as it is only the tabloid backends who mention it. The BBC and broadsheets are hardly going to mention them as a companion unless it is headlined as a new companion for the whole sereis and a big name. Rory was mentioned as being Amy's other half and that was about it. So since the press already mentioned him, why would they run a seperate story stating the upgrade? KnowIG 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know what it says, I read it, that's how I was able to comment. The term "companion" is only introduced based on the journalist's assumption that Rory is a companion. True, the actor doesn't leap to correct the interviewer, but that alone is not sufficient basis for anything. Suppose someone had said to Matt Smith, "So, what's it like being the King of Upper Boat?" – that wouldn't mean anything, even if Smith didn't literally deny it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- (1) Reading both this discussion and the one at WT:WikiProject Doctor Who#Rory a companion?, there seem to be a lot of diverse views regarding everything from reliability of sources to the definition of a companion. I don't really see a consensus on either issue. You are correct that it shouldn't be changed until consensus is firmly on one side, but that's very different from the issues already being sorted out, which they don't appear to be. (2) The last source isn't just what a tabloid journalist thinks, but appears to be endorsed by the actor! Alzarian16 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- (1) As far as I'm concerned, it is sorted out, at least until the consensus changes. (2) I don't consider the last one of those reliable; it's one tabloid journalist's take on what companion status is. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The last one looks reliable to me. It's about time we sorted this one way or another at any rate. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"The"
Oh dear. Official BBC press release calls this episode "The Vampires of Venice", official Doctor Who website calls it "Vampires of Venice". [1] (Although with one instance of the "the" on this page, perhaps suggesting a last minute change?) Whatever do we do? U-Mos (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- We...wait until next week? DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd tend to go with the Press Office version for THE moment, since we rely on that for the synopsis details. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Reception
Handy links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/may/08/doctor-who-vampires-of-venice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7692610/Doctor-Who-review-Vampires-of-Venice.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasty monster (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Ooh look at this!
Isn't that lovely? Tasty monster (=TS ) 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The plot section is too fat
The plot section seems to contain far more words than are necessary. It should probably be trimmed by a couple of hundred words, perhaps more. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)