Talk:Dark Water (Doctor Who)

Villain?

question. who IS the villain? the trailer made it seem as if Clara has turned bad... Visokor (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait until the episode. The trailer for Mummy on the Orient Express made it seem as if Clara wasn't present at all - that was false. There may not even be a villain of sorts. It's only another week to wait. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a certain well-known enemy – and all the clues are misleading, right up until the reveal. Dsalt (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The phone call?

We heard a phone ringing and saw "The Doctor" on Clara's phone but was he calling her or was she calling him? His words suggested he was answering the phone. If it is ambiguous the text here should be less definite about it. 86.134.83.50 (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. It's been amended. DonQuixote (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The TARDIS phone was ringing in its phone compartment upon the alien planet without it being pulled inside of the TARDIS (which the Doctor later does when he picks up), which would mean that someone is calling him. And Clara's phone shows the words "Calling... The Doctor". With a bit of thought it's not really that ambiguous. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

Hi there. AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) and I have just had a little bit of a disagreement with the caption for the image in the infobox. While I feel that the caption should contain a little bit of production information to demonstrate the scene's importance (a similar approach to "The Stolen Earth"), Alex feels that this information (which is also stated in the "Production" section) is unnecessary. Although Alex brings up a good point when mentioning WP:OTHER, I feel that this information should remain in the article. Of course, I will not add it again unless a consensus is reached, but I'd like to read other opinions about this. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it to the talk page peacefully. I, too, am interested in other opinions of this issue. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of the infobox image, might I suggest the one here [1] (3rd one down I see it, which is a more composed shot, with Missy + Doc in foreground of the marching Cybermen). This still captured the Invasion aspect (Cybermen marching out of St. Paul's), but 1) is an official "title card" (for all purposes given the past episodes this season 2) also gives us Missy in context here. (I'm sure that one can find this same image off BBC's official site). --MASEM (t) 01:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife

Is it a coincidence that an episode involving the afterlife was broadcast on The Day of the Dead ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dead ) or was it a planned broadcast? 110.146.143.115 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Swampy.

That's a Mexican holiday. Nothing to do with the UK. That should explain itself. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

All Souls' Day ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Souls%27_Day ) is known in the UK though. But shouldn't go in the article without a source of course. Ratemonth (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Especially as the episode was not broadcast on that date! Mezigue (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Spoilers

Spoilers (e.g. Missy = Master) should be limited to the Plot section, which is consistent with others Wikipedia articles on novels, movies and other television shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.224.216 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER we don't worry about spoiler elements within an article about the work with the spoiler. Yes, if the spoiler is not a key element of the work to understand it broadly it can be kept in the plot section but in this very specific case, Missy's reveal as the Master was a huge amount of the buzz that this episode had, and to summarize the article without mentioning this fact would be very much amiss. It would be inappropriate to, for example, reveal Missy's identity in one of the earlier episodes she was in, but not here. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually the edit is consistent with Wikipedia policy in that the revelation in this case is a plot element, therefore it should be within the Plot subsection. For example, the Wikipedia summary of "The Empire Strikes Back" does not disclose the identity of Luke's father (which generated similar "buzz"), but that information is contained in the article (in the Plot subsection). Therefore it was not deleted or censored from the article -- the practice is compliant with Wikipedia:Spoiler.

Also, "buzz" is not an academic principle, which was the motivation behind Wikipedia:Spoiler. It's a judgment call, not a case of clear objective merit. Tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles follow this practice, many with just as much "buzz" as this episode's revelation had.

Spoiler in the caption

@TomJasendro: Officially taking it to the talk page. Do you intend to do so as well in a civil manner? -- Alex^TW 10:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Very well. Please refer to the discussion above titled "Spoilers". This sums up my views on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomJasendro (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end of each of your posts, per talk page guidelines. And that post was replied to with support for the "spoilers". -- Alex^TW 12:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:Yes, I can see that it was replied to and that the spoilers were justified. But the reply below this is what I was referring to in particular. To be more specific: "Actually the edit is consistent with Wikipedia policy in that the revelation in this case is a plot element, therefore it should be within the Plot subsection. For example, the Wikipedia summary of "The Empire Strikes Back" does not disclose the identity of Luke's father (which generated similar "buzz"), but that information is contained in the article (in the Plot subsection). Therefore it was not deleted or censored from the article -- the practice is compliant with Wikipedia:Spoiler. Also, "buzz" is not an academic principle, which was the motivation behind Wikipedia:Spoiler. It's a judgment call, not a case of clear objective merit. Tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles follow this practice, many with just as much "buzz" as this episode's revelation had." TomJasendro (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for copying that entire post for my to be able to read again. Greatly appreciated. Just because it is a plot element, does not mean it needs to be confined only to the Plot section. As you can see, it is also in the lead, but there seems to be no issue with that, only when it is in the infobox. This is given the fact that the reply above references "the Wikipedia summary" - i.e. the lead. This is not where your issue lies. Now that I have replied to that post, please present your own arguments to the discussion. -- Alex^TW 12:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@TomJasendro: Any further comments? -- Alex^TW 11:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)