Talk:Rose (Doctor Who episode)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRose (Doctor Who episode) 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 23, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
November 28, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 28, 2005.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Rose is the first new episode of Doctor Who to be shown since 1989?
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time

Sorry to but in, but what would be great would be if this could be reviewed by Saturday, the fiftieth anniversary of Doctor Who, or a few days before so that if it passes it can be nominated for DYK. Thanks, Matty.007 19:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather do a decent review than a hasty one. If speed is the priority here then I am not the best reviewer. I am quite happy to put this back in the pool and let someone else do it. Let me know in the 24 hours. I am quite happy for people to leave comments on my talkpage, but as I do have this page watchlisted there's no need to leave a talkback template. I will pick up on comments left here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making a passing observation, and also agree with you that a quality not speed is needed. That said, I saw that you had been taking up lots of reviews, so was just making you aware of the fact that a DYK would be good. Thanks, Matty.007 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in there, it was just my opinion, Kelvin 101 nominated it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - and I recognise what you are saying. I have put reviews back when people say they would prefer a quick one (and there are reviewers who can drill down and do a review quickly - indeed, I have also been known to do a review in less than 24 hours!). I will put this one top of the pile and see what happens. I remember the Saturday of the first Dr Who, even though I actually missed it. My mum told me about it when I got home, and she told me to be home early the next Saturday so as not to miss the second episode. So I was home early, and the BBC showed the first episode again because so many people had missed it because of Kennedy's assassination. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Matty.007 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria[edit]

Pass
I'm wondering about some of the detail - such as the coat rack. Unless the mention of the coat rack is put into context, it appears to be rather trivial - something of interest to fans perhaps, but I'm not seeing the interest for a general encylopedia. Why does it matter that the coat rack is in the same style of the first series? Is there a reliable source which mentions this? At the moment the source is a BBC trivia page. It may be a fact - but is it an important and helpful fact? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that bit, but I think that the rest of the 'Continuity' section is relevant. Thanks, Matty.007 18:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query
  • Per WP:Layout, a GA criteria, please check the external links against WP:EL. There appear to be too many links for a GA level article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Caption on the Russell Davies image appears too long per WP:CAP, a GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Attempted fix on both. Matty.007 17:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the possible exception of a BBC link I can't open, which may be a streamed video of the episode, I am not seeing any of those external links as meeting WP:ELYES and doubtful if any meet WP:ELMAYBE. I would suggest that they are all removed, or a rationale given for each one that is proposed should stay. At GA level, an article would be deemed to contain the sort of general information that would be contained in sites such as IMDB or other user generated site such as tardis.wikia.com. The script or a licensed streaming of the episode would be good links. But general articles on alternative websites are not. Worth checking with WP:RSN to see if this is acceptable. It has a transcript of the episode. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed again. 1 isn't a RS, but contains info, 2 is official, 3 and 4 are internet TV/Doctor Who sites, and 5 is IMDB. Matty.007 18:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please either remove the links or explain exactly which EL criteria they meet in WP:EL. At GA level we should not be directing readers to alternative reader generated sites like IMDB and external wikis. If those sites have more information than Wikipedia than this article is by default failing to provide enough information. For an article on a TV episode links to the script or a licensed stream of the video would be acceptable, but not fan sites such as http://www.drwhoguide.com, which offer nothing that can't be put in this article with appropriate research and use of reliable sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all but the official BBC link. Thanks, Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can you explain why the BBC link has been left in? I can understand a link to the BBC website for the article on Doctor Who, but I'm not seeing the reason for this article which is on one episode. The link goes to a page which tells us nothing we don't already know, and if you click on links on that page they take you away from the episode onto general info about Doctor Who or current events. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", which the link does not, however, it also says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", so I think that although the official page doesn't add any information, it says when it was on, and is the official page for that episode. Thanks, Matty.007 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am still querying this is A) The subject of the article is an episode of Doctor Who, the link is to a site run by the BBC. The BBC own the episode, but are not in themselves the subject of the article. That in itself could be overlooked if the link was actually providing something of value to the reader. It is not. B) It offers nothing of value. It is a landing platform which then directs readers to other pages which promote other aspects of the Doctor Who franchise. Placing it on this article looks like a link for its own sake, rather than a link which is useful to the reader. Even if a link is "official", it is only used if it adds value - see WP:ELOFFICIAL. This article gets over 18,000 readers a month - we don't want to frustrate these readers by sending them to a website which offers them no value, but wastes their time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:Layout consider turning the Broadcast and reception into a single section. Essentially those sub-sections are paragraphs. Creating such short sub-sections inhibits flow and makes the article look cluttered and uninviting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the prose is not clear or helpful. This sentence "Clive's "Who is Doctor Who?" fictional website actually exists and is maintained and updated by the BBC as if the events of the series were real." only makes sense if you already know what it's about. The website is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Other poor quality sentences are "Although this episode is set in London, Queens Arcade, where we see the Autons come to life, is actually in Cardiff"; "The Auton sequences were difficult to film because the costumes were uncomfortable for the actors and so many breaks had to be taken"; "For audience identification purposes, Davies wanted the alien menace to be recognisably human, and for Rose to believe for at least the first twenty minutes that it could be human. He felt that there was no need to create a new monster as the Autons met the criteria". These need more than copy-editing, they need rethinking as its not clear what is intended, or the information is being presented poorly. I suspect the Queens Arcade sentence is saying that the episode was filmed in Cardiff. I think the difficulty with the prose is close to this criteria being a fail. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed, then undid my removal of that section. Do you think it is useful, or just trivia? Thanks, Matty.007 19:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivia. That the BBC uses non-branded products is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article on a Dr Who episode. Building an article is about researching the topic and selecting the appropriate material. It's not about putting in whatever information one comes across in a media release or fan site. There is a selection process involved, and that means rejecting inappropriate material that the general reader would not be interested in. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was unsure. Removed. Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed those sentences as well. Thanks, Matty.007 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus. No section other than the Plot is too long or too detailed. The Plot section, however, seems more detailed than necessary - it's almost half of the article, and contains unnecessary or interpretative phrases such as "the last day of her ordinary life", "As she is making him a coffee", and "Unable to let the matter rest". Perhaps a bit of trimming? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries and Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary give some advice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cut a little, but I think that most of it is important for the article. Thanks, Matty.007 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that is how you do it. Thanks! Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage is improved. Possibly OK now - will consider again when doing final checks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any Original Research, though I'd like the facts sourced to the blank BBC webpage to be appropriately verified before passing this. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.
The 1996 TV movie is mentioned in the lead, but not in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  • Coverage. Given that this was the first episode of the revived Dr Who, and as such a somewhat significant episode, then I suspect readers might want some of the background leading up to its creation. Difficult perhaps to judge just how much information should go into this article as compared to the article on the entire series, but a little bit from this would be helpful. Also, some information on the cast would be helpful. We get a sentence in the lead that this is the debut of Christopher Eccleston as the Ninth Doctor, but that is not picked up on in the main body as it should be per WP:Lead - indeed, the first mention of Eccleston in the main body is that he is leaving the series. Piper only gets mentioned in the main body in the critical reception. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a small expansion, but the relevant info in the article you linked is about the series in general; I think linking to the page and the section now is sufficient. Thanks, Matty.007 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is definitely a lot of information about bringing the series back, and I would also propose a casting section similar to The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who) as it is the first episode with the new cast. There is also information more specific to the episode's production that can be found; I have the DVD but have not gotten around to watch the commentary, though that would undoubtely be valuable. I do have notes on the accompanying Doctor Who Confidential episodes, which I'll make time to add if someone else doesn't get to it first (I'm not sure my notes are the most comprehensible to everyone). Overall this article is a bit premature in this section compared to other episode articles, especially as this is such an important episode. Glimmer721 talk 03:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glimmer721: would you be able to add this before Saturday, preferably ASAP? Thanks, Matty.007 17:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have had a bit of an expansion, but there really isn't much out there. Thanks, Matty.007 20:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though we don't get much about the development of the episode nor the recording, we do get a section called Fictional websites which contains some trivia. Is this really needed? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I initially removed it, then restored it. What do you think on the section? Matty.007 20:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivia. What the article needs is encyclopedic information. I do believe there are books on the series which might give more factual information that would be useful. The article needs to written for the general reader rather than the typical Dr Who fan. Be aware of the audience for the article. This is Wikipedia not a Dr Who fan site. Fans can write the article, but just be aware of the sort of things the general reader would be interested in rather than what Dr Who fans would be interested in. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, removed. Thanks, Matty.007 18:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the external links - shannonsullivan.com - has good information on the production and filming, and shows the sources where the information came from. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thanks, Matty.007 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several challengeable statements are unsourced. I've marked one paragraph. I also note that the article is mainly sourced to snips from the BBC rather than detailed books on the topic - and that's probably why it is so thin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • "The episode was written by show runner Russell T Davies". What is "show runner"? It's not mentioned again in the article. Is this the same as Showrunner? If that is what is meant, would executive producer be acceptable as an alternative and clearer usage? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is a UK TV show, that would probably be best. I'll have a look. Matty.007 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Matty.007 18:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RTD was billed in the opening credits as follows: "Rose by Russell T Davies", and in the closing credits as follows: "Executive Producers Russell T Davies Julie Gardner Mal Young". So he was an Executive Producer but not the Executive Producer. These three shared the post until "The Parting of the Ways" twelve episodes later. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of cites use this webpage as a source: [1], but I'm not getting anything from it other than: "Life in plastic, it's fantastic. When Rose Tyler meets a mysterious stranger called the Doctor, her life will never be the same again. Soon she realises that the whole of planet Earth is in danger." SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A number of cites in the article? If so, which ones? Thanks, Matty.007 19:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current Reference number 2. There are eight statements in the article which use that page as a source. I've looked at the Wayback Machine, but the page remains the same (for me at least): [2]. Can some other source be used to verify the same information? SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try and fix this this evening. Is that the only issue left? Thanks, Matty.007 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will this BBC page do as an alternative? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Use one is a plot thing, so doesn't need a source. 2 is also a plot thing, and already sourced. In fact, it is only used to source plot, which doesn't need sourcing. Thanks, Matty.007 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have had a go at expanding the article, and addressing all the issues you raised, is this article now GA standard? Thanks, Matty.007 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

Concerns are listed above. My feeling is that this article needs a fair amount of work to build it up to GA standard. It is rather flimsy at the moment with very little encyclopedic information. It is written with the tone and point of view of media press releases and fan gossip rather than informative and authoritative facts. If folks are prepared to put in the work to get this ready for Saturday, then I will support that and will keep this at the top of my watchlist. I am also happy to keep this GAN open for longer than the standard seven days if folks do want to take their time on building it. I am OK with keeping a GAN open for over a month as long as progress is being made. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the amendments a bit later today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What still needs attending to:
Sourcing. Eight statements are cited to a webpage which does not verify the information.
Coverage. This article contains less information about production and development of the episode than this blog. Collinson, the producer, is not mentioned in the article. Interesting pieces of information such as JK Rowling turning down the offer to write the script are not included. The article would benefit from a little time spent on being built up to a decent standard. I don't have time to work on it today or the weekend (I was going to do some work last night, but then our street had a power cut!), but should be able to do some work next week. Having it a GA standard article on Saturday is a nice aim, but given that the 50th anniversary is for a different episode, I don't think it matters that this one is still being worked on. At least it is being worked on!
The lead will need some work so that it meets WP:Lead.
A final scan for prose: I still come across unclear sentences - "Eccleston's clothing in the episode of a battered leather jacket was used in the pitch originally set out by Davies, and also went with Eccleston's desire not to have clothes dominating his time on the show."
If folks manage to get the above done today, I'll look again this evening and see if it can be listed. If not, then I have no problem with working on those things myself next week. With only a bit of work needed, I don't see the article as failing to be listed. The only question is when. And the target is not Saturday. The target is the GA criteria. Meet the criteria today and it will be listed for Saturday. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have added a little to the production part; but my feeling is that most of the stuff in that source should go in the article on series 1, not the first episode. Having had a look; there isn't much to-do when Ecclestone was announced as Doctor, in sharp contrast to Matt Smith; who was talked about everywhere for weeks. The sourcing was for plot, and I removed the case where it wasn't. That sentence is fixed, and I am working on the lead. Thanks, Matty.007 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at the lead. Is the article OK now? Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go, but I'm not making good progress. I am noticing uncited challengeable statements (which I've tagged), and I'm doing quick research and finding information which is pertinent and useful to this article, but is not in here. It's a balance between comprehensive (FA criteria) and broad coverage (GA criteria), but it's causing me concern. I can sort this out, but I don't have time tonight as we're off to France first thing in the morning. I would have liked to have had this passed as GA for you by tomorrow, but I'm not quite comfortable with it as it is, and I'd rather be sure. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try and fix these later today. Thanks, Matty.007 09:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've referenced those issues to the episode/series, per this essay (the only thing I could find which addressed such an issue). Is the article OK now? Thanks, Matty.007 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the regeneration stuff is better in production/casting. If this hasn't been recorded, I'm planning on watching the DVD commentary Wednesday (the earliest I can get to it) and hopefully work on structure and adding a few more other sources. Glimmer721 talk 19:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I realised that this couldn't appear in DYK anyway, having appeared in it in 2005; so there is no rush. Thanks, Matty.007 19:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A few quick things that could be added with (relaible) sources and information found in other articles, just off the top of my head:

  • Casting of Eccleston and Piper, Coduri and Clarke, as well as functions of their character (not as in-depth as their respective articles, but more than what is here)
  • The original run of the series (1963-1989) and how when bringing it back, Davies changed some things (45-minute format, function of companion, etc - in relation to this episode at least)
  • Either more publicity or no more at this GA stage
  • Maybe more reception

I'll try to get these added and expanded over the next few days. Glimmer721 talk 19:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't do this now; I have to watch Doctor Who... Matty.007 19:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well I was too. I just made these quick notes before. I've made a few more edits but the major ones will have to wait until tomorrow. Glimmer721 talk 00:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I have added information from the DVD commentary as well as some more information from other sources, mostly from production. The article has been substantially improved by this and I believe it now requires another look at. Thanks for being patient! Glimmer721 talk 22:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listed[edit]

Great work from everyone! The article has really improved. Listing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review SilkTork; and especially for prioritising this. Thanks, Matty.007 17:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rose (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the title not Rose (Doctor Who episode)?[edit]

The title of this article is ambiguous despite having a parenthetical disambiguator, and one would think if anything the character would be the primary topic of "Rose (Doctor Who)", since she appeared in multiple episodes beyond this one, and this title would redirect there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is a fair point. I'm curious if we should make similar provisions for Timeless (Star Trek: Voyager) to Timeless (Star Trek: Voyager episode) to differentiate from Timeless (Doctor Who) which redirects to Timeless (Cole novel)?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 09:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... no... that's a completely dissimilar problem, since Doctor Who is a separate franchise from Star Trek (let alone Voyager)... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind then!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 16:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The arguments opposed to moving focused on the fact that the character was adequately disambiguated. Those arguments didn't satisfactorily whether or not this page was adequately disambiguated to someone who is a lay person/someone who knows about Doctor Who, but isn't very familiar with it (which is the spirit behind COMMONNAME). Those who supported a move made a strong case that the current title is confusing and could lead to people going to the wrong article thinking that they were going to the character. Because of all these factors, I feel there is a strong enough consensus to execute a move. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (Doctor Who) → Rose (Doctor Who episode) – The current title, despite its parenthetical disambiguator, is still ambiguous. In fact, it is probably more likely to be taken as referring to the character, about whom we also have an article. Whether that is the case can be dealt with by making the current title redirect to one article or the other, but the current title of this article needing to be changed is clear-cut, since using a parenthetical disambiguator that still is ambiguous is out of line with WP:DISAMBIGWP:PRECISE, as it could (indeed probably usually does) refer to the character who appeared in multiple episodes after this one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC) (Edited: 10:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

What specifically in WP:DISAMBIG do you think this is out of line with? I don't immediately see anything that necessarily warrants a move. There is a hatnote for Rose Tyler for people that do come here by mistake. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, but wouldn't they be the majority of people who type the title of this article? Anyway: Shit, you're right. Not DISAMBIG. WP:PRECISE. And a few others that were cited in this discussion from five years ago that I misremembered. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given the character this fails WP:CRITERIA; if we're going to title an article, might as well make it helpful to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Rose Tyler" is a fully-qualified unique name for the character (it is mentioned numerous times on the show) and requires no special distinguishing from this episode. The hatnote is sufficient to direct people to the character if they search "Rose doctor who". --Masem (t) 15:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to add, nearly all TV episode articles that need disambiguation use simply the show name for that, without "episode". Yes, precision suggests we do that, but we'd need to do it equally across all TV episode articles, and that likely needs a larger RFC to decide. --Masem (t) 15:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: WP:OSE I actually agree that the other articles should be moved to more precise titles. See my earlier statement on the matter here. But multimoves are difficult, messy, and if I had opened one with a hundred proposed moves and three or four of them were bad that could have sunk the whole ship. This page should be moved now, and if you want to RM all the other articles with similar problems, feel free to ping me and I will probably support those as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But as brought up below, this would go against NCTV. You'd need a full RFC to change NCTV to add "episode" to all of these, not just this one. (I will say that I do think we should go in that direction, but that does require a serious challenge to establish practice, and you don't go changing that one tiny article at a time). --Masem (t) 02:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles -Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element) and WP:SURPRISE because people looking at the current tile might rightly think its about the character. -- Netoholic @ 20:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except, the example given with Serenity is not what is happening here. We can fully disambiguate the character, there is no need for "Rose (Doctor Who character)". If we didn't know her last name, as the case was of Ace (it's buried in script), we'd absolutely follow that example, but we can get Rose off any disambiguation and as there is no other Doctor Who concept named "Rose" beyond this episode, it doesn't need further disambiguation. --Masem (t) 02:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't fully disambiguate the character. In general popular discussion of the show (it's been a while since I watched the show itself) companions are usually referred to by their first names. By giving the title "Rose (Doctor Who)" to the episode article, we are explicitly prioritizing that one. NCTV is at best ambiguous about what to do in cases where an episode is named for a character but the character is indisputably better-known: it also gives an example of the name of the show being used as a parenthetical disambiguator for a character article, and even if it were clear that the minimum possible disambiguation should be used, it would at least be in conflict with other naming guidelines like PRECISE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She was called "Rose Tyler" many many times (including some of the first few words the Doctor says to her here). There's zero question of her last name. Yes, I can envision that not every person who watches DW can recognize that but we're not talking obscure trivia, and the hat-note here helps those looking for the character. --Masem (t) 04:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. I didn't say there was a question of what her real last name was. I said that she is usually referred to in secondary sources by her first name only. This means that the present title of this article is ambiguous at best, and should probably redirect to her article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd needing to move Tegan Jovanka, Amy Pond, Clara Oswald, and many others for that same reason, which doesn't make any sense. Article titles should avoid requiring disambiguation if there is a natural and well-known non-parenthetical name we can use, and that's fully the case here and the others. --Masem (t) 06:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But I never said the character article should be located at this title. WP:DISAMBIG is clear that natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation, and since she (obviously) is not the PRIMARYTOPIC for Rose, we use her surname (natural disambiguation) instead of a parenthetical "(Doctor Who character)". I was clear above that Rose (Doctor Who) should be a redirect to one or another of the fully disambiguated titles. The other character articles you link to do not have this problem as none of them apparently have episodes named for them, and one of them in fact already had Amy (Doctor Who) as a redirect. (I've just now remedied the other two.) You are mincing words by saying article titles should "avoid requiring disambiguation" since her surname is disambiguation (natural disambiguation), and it's really unclear why. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two topics for "Rose" that apply to DW - the character and the episode. You seem to be arguing that we should have "Rose (Doctor Who)" as a two-item only disambiguation page. That's very much unnecessary and thats when we should use hatnotes to avoid the extra disambiguation page. In addition to of course breaking the TV naming conventions for episodes. --Masem (t) 07:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying (and this is now the fourth time) that it should redirect to the character article and that article have a hatnote for the episode. (Although I recognize the possibility that I might be wrong and more readers are looking for this page so it should redirect here; I guess also theoretically it could redirect to a section of the main disambig page, similarly to how The Avengers (film) does; those are discussions for another day.) This is how it has worked with Amy (Doctor Who) for the last eight years and Clara (Doctor Who) and Tegan (Doctor Who) for the last half-hour. Please stop responding to what you want me to have said rather than what I am actually saying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and am confident that more people are looking for the character article. Rose (Doctor Who) can redirect to Rose Tyler, and a hatnote can be added pointing to the episode. -- Netoholic @ 15:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have to ask ourselves how many readers to WP are going to be searching for Rose Tyler the character by the search term "Rose (Doctor Who)" (exactly like that), to justify this approach. And knowing most users, that is not how they will search for the character. Assuming they don't know the last name but know it's Rose and on Doctor Who, they will search "Rose Doctor Who", which of course is not an article and will bring up the search results, which the first two hits are this episode article, and Rose Tyler. They will find the character in exactly the same number of hits as if they typed "Rose (Doctor Who)" in the current situation. What's being asked to be changed here in this RM is to go from a standard approach set by our disambiguation naming policy and the TV project policy that doesn't affect how fast one will get to the character by any means they search, to a non-standard scheme that only benefits by saving one click for a small portion of readers that happen to search a specific way. --Masem (t) 15:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "standard approach" is that once we move a page, we can leave the redirect as is, or point it somewhere more generally useful. If someone comes to look up the character and starts typing in the search box R...o...s...e...(space)...D...o...c - a that point they will see Rose (Doctor Who) as the top suggestion in the search line pop-up. I think there is a reasonable expectation that they will click it and expect to see info on the character. Keep in mind also, this will help with optimizing outside search engine results too. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried that and I don't get that result. "Rose Doc" does not bring up any results. So we can't use how the autocomplete works to judge this. --Masem (t) 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have to ask ourselves how many readers to WP are going to be searching for Rose Tyler the character by the search term "Rose (Doctor Who)" (exactly like that) For the last time, no we don't. Please read other people's comments before replying to them. I explicitly stated at the very top of this RM (and numerous times since) that that is a question to be dealt with after this page is moved. The lack of precision of this article's title is rationale enough to move this page. The fact is that most readers probably aren't searching for this article with the exact title either: if anything, they are typing "Rose (Do..." into the search box and the autocomplete(-ish thingamajig) is telling them that the current title of this article does not have the parenthetical disambiguator "Doctor Who episode". But if I was looking for the episode, and I saw the current title, I would probably think it was the article on the character. (This actually happened the other day, and I had to type out "Rose (Doctor Who e...", since I type a lot faster than my mobile internet connection loads wiki entries -- this is what prompted this RM.) Using a parenthetical disambiguator that is still ambiguous makes the disambiguator useless. Again, see The Avengers (film) -- 99% of readers who search that term, or editors who link it, mean either the 2012 film or one of its sequels, but since we have an article on an identically titled 1998 film, we fully disambiguate both articles' titles, even though one is definitely more obscure than the other, and this was even true in 2013 before Age of Ultron had its own article, so searches for that would also all redirect to the 2012 film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And FWIW, it works for me. When I type "Rose Doc" the first item is this article, which I would assume referred to the character (how many people even know the names of random episodes of the show?) and the second is for the character. If we moved the page, I assume "Rose (Doctor Who episode)" would be one of the first two hits, which would prevent confusion by people who are looking for the episode but assume the current title of this article also refers to the character. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the character article is sufficiently disambiguated, all that is required on this article is the hatnote. Unless sufficient evidence can be provided that there is a majority of readers that come to this article that are meaning to go to the character article? -- AlexTW 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: What about the fact that editors looking for this article are likely to be confused by the title, which seems more likely to refer to the character? At present, "Rose (Doctor Who episode)" doesn't appear in autocomplete when one enters "Rose (Doc", so I initially assumed Wikipedia didn't have an article on the episode. When you say that the character article is sufficiently disambiguated and that all that is required on this article is the hatnote, are you implying that the episode is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the title "Rose (Doctor Who)"? That seems unlikely; given that ......... I was actually going to cite page view statistics here, but stats.grok.se doesn't seem to be working (it's been a while since I last cited page view statistics); once I figure out what's wrong or find an alternative I'll get back to you. If you know of an alternative and could cite statistics right now that would demonstrate that the majority of people who type "Rose (Doctor Who)" into the search box are looking for this article (which seems to be your assertion), that would be just as good. Anyway, even if PRIMARYTOPIC would support the status quo, PRECISE supports moving, so it would have to be very PRIMARYTOPIC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so after getting home to a computer (as opposed to an iPad with almost no battery) the first thing I did was check page information, which does give view stats for the last 30 days, but not in a way that would be verifiable long-term. Still, it's 5,711 for the episode and 14,731 for the character. Even if we assume no one (except me) typed "Rose (Doc..." into search and assumed that "Rose (Doctor Who)" and "Rose (Doctor Who character)" were the same thing, that's still over 2.5 times as many people who were definitely looking for the character article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those statistics are all well and good, congrats, but where are the statistics to back up the claim that the majority of editors who visit this page are actually looking for the character page, and not just one? -- AlexTW 19:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWhovian: What kind of evidence would you like? It's obvious that the title of this article applies just as much to that article as this one, and far more people are definitely looking for that one. Do you know of any way to find numbers for people who come to this article and then immediately click the link in the hatnote? I have never seen such statistics cited in an RM, if they exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And there's also the fact that people looking for this article (who are definitely in the minority but we do exist) will see this article's title and assume it refers to the character, perhaps assuming we don't have an article on the episode. I know the English Wikipedia speculative fiction TV editing community better than that, but I still typed out as far as "Rose (Doctor Who ep..." just to be sure, since I type faster than my browser loads. But having an article with the fully disambiguated title "Rose (Doctor Who episode)" would solve this problem. Did you read this part of my initial comment or did you just click on the links to the page view stats and assume that was all I wrote of substance? Because your response seems to imply the latter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me to find those statistics, it's up to those making the claim. All I'm seeing is an assumption on what other readers are apparently wanting based on one's personal views, without any actual basis to this claim. -- AlexTW 06:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "claim"? What "statistics"? I showed you statistics that clearly show more than three times as many people looking for the character article despite its being at a less intuitive title, so it can be assumed that a significant number of people who come to this page immediately click the hatnote off of it. You are claiming that precise statistics for this number of people clicking the hatnote link exist and you want to see them, but you are not telling me where I can find them to show them to you. I frankly don't believe they exist so I don't know why you are trying to waste my time making me search for them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did give me statistics on how many people view the articles, but you did not provide statistics that those who come to this article are specifically looking for the character article. You yourself state that it is an assumption, and that is not what we base discussions on. It is not up to me to provide the statistics - it is up to the one wanting to make the move based on the apparent statistics. Without them, we could base the entire Wikipedia on assumptions, but this is not the way we work. -- AlexTW 23:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's an assumption based on clearly established and obviously significant facts. Lacking exact statistics (you are claiming such statistics exist, apparently in an attempt to waste my time looking for them), all we have are probability judgements based on the established facts.
But my move rationale wasn't even based on the probability judgement -- you are the one honing in on it; my move rationale was instead based on WP:PRECISE, and it's most definitely not "just an assumption" that the current title of this article is ambiguous. That's a given.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This all still comes down to WP:NCDAB "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". We have a way to naturally distinguish the character from the episode, by using her well-known last name. --Masem (t) 13:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: You keep saying that, but everyone can clearly see that this RM is for the episode article, not the character one. I have specifically stated (in fact I pointed it out to you) that the character article should be naturally disambiguated per NCDAB. The problem is that this article needs to be fully disambiguated as well, since the majority of people who search for this title are almost certainly looking for that one. "Rose Tyler" is a fairly common real name; casual fans (like me) who only know her by her first name would not necessarily think "Ah, the Doctor Who character!" when they see it in the search box drop-down list, and would assume that "Rose (Doctor Who)" would take them to the character article regardless of what her last name is. This means that the current title of this article should redirect either to her article (which, I emphasize for like the fourth or fifth time) or to the main "Rose" disambig page. But, again, that is a problem to be dealt with after this RM, since what this really all comes down to is WP:PRECISE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, because all the arguments being given is that "Rose (Doctor Who)" should be the character article, but there is no move request for that. --Masem (t) 21:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, no: the argument, based on PRECISE, is that the episode article should be fully disambiguated. Which article "Rose (Doctor Who)" should redirect to can be decided after that. Please stop repeating the same strawman argument. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with the second idea, not the first. I just think it's a separate issue from fully disambiguating the title of this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Current title remains ambiguous as it could equally apply to the character because naming conventions for episodes and characters follow the same pattern. --woodensuperman 12:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Critical Analysis[edit]

There are at least two different professional books which have been published, specifically examining both the 'behind the scenes' real world development of 'Rose' and the thematic elements which make it up. These are not versions of the story itself, but are (semi) academic studies of the episode as whole, written by people unconnected with the creation of the story on television, and are primarily made up of critical analysis. I added this detail to the page but one editor keeps changing/undoing the section to headline it first 'Commercial releases' alongside dvds etc, and then 'Printed releases' alongside the novelisation.

These are clearly not the same thing but the user in question is unwilling to engage in discussion (ignoring/deleting an attempt to open a dialogue on his talk page and adding no note to his reversions/changes).

Life is too short to keep coming back here (and on other Doctor Who pages) to revert his changes, but perhaps I'm missing something - sis the consensus that something like the Complete History or The Black Archive books on 'Rose' are in fact somehow versions of the story itself? If that is the consensus, then fine, but it'd be interesting to know if I'm wasting my time...

I've put the page back to what I think the more useful layout for now. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rose_(Doctor_Who_episode)&oldid=1209857731"