Talk:The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) is part of the Doctor Who (series 5) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 11, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
April 8, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
September 17, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Doctor Who villains#Prisoner Zero|Prisoner Zero]] The anchor (#Prisoner Zero) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This isn't a dalek story[edit]

Somebody has tagged this article with a template indicating that the episode is a dalek story. The daleks appear in passing, in a scan of earth's records viewed by the Atraxi. On the same logic one could call the episode a "first doctor story" (and a second, a third, and so on). It isn't a dalek story. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as a minor appearance. Whether a short clip should be listed as a minor appearance is another matter though. DonQuixote (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if it drills down to that level of detail, there's on harm in having it here. The daleks are a very important part of the Doctor Who story but their appearances are sparse, so it makes sense to link all such appearances, even minor ones.

In the real world, they are also possibly unique in that they are the intellectual property of the late Terry Nation and appearances are (or have been) subject to agreements with his estate. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I'm coming in late on this, but I think anybody who watches this episode thinking they'll see something on the Daleks will be sorely disappointed. Nerfer (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird fan stuff in the plot description[edit]

As a fan I'd be perfectly happy to discuss, with other fans, the question of the date of the Doctor's encounter with young Amelia, and the significance if any of the 1990 date on the NHS badge worn over a decade later by grown-up Amy's nurse friend on the village green. But now our plot description dates that first encounter to 1996 and introduces fannish speculation about the presence of the London Eye three years before it was assembled. I submit that this kind of thing is not obviously part of the plot.

If these points should later turn out to be a crucial part of some plot arc, then we can revise the plot description. But in the meantime this kind of stuff does not belong in the plot description (do I have to remind editors that this is a work of fiction, that there is no Rose Tyler and no Powell Estate?) Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the London eye stuff, but I think the dates are relevant since everything converges on the date of June 26 2010 which is the wedding of Amy. Not often are events so precisely dated. June 1996 and 2008 are sourced from the shooting script as reproduced in DWM 421 page 24 and following. Hektor (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who's approach to notions of consistency, continuity and canon have always been pretty relaxed. If it should really prove to be relevant, discuss the date stuff under continuity. You will be expected to say why it's important, though. There are one or two pretty good Who wiki sites that would absolutely love this stuff and don't have the burden of sticking to the encyclopedic standards set for Wikipedia. Tasty monster (=TS ) 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The production team swiftly admitted at the time that the 1990 date on the NHS badge was a goof, and that nothing plotwise should be read into it. Sorry, no citation, but was in either a Dr Who Confidential and/or an issue of Doctor Who Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.137.179 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity[edit]

I am removing a bunch of things that have ended in this section and shouldn't be, e.g. characters repeating phrases or situations. The cloister bell ringing isn't a noteworthy item of continuity any more than the Doctor using his screwdriver. It's just part of the show. As for saying "what what what", it's plain silly... Mezigue (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 21:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were some minor prose issues and some link issues, but I sorted them out. I pass!--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit[edit]

Per request, did a couple passes. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

Describe the Doctor's costume (did he use "bow ties are cool?")
Describe the kissogram a bit. It works both as a hoot and as a commentary on the difficulties young people face in getting started.

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the suggestions if I can find good sources for them. The costumes are in Doctor Who (series 5) and I'm not sure they are completely necessary here. It could depend. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]