Talk:The Vampires of Venice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Vampires of Venice 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.
Good topic starThe Vampires of Venice 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
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 25, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Toby Whithouse[edit]

Credit him as the creator of Being Human as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 13:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rory = companion ?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd be inclinded to agree with this. Although if we're desperate for sources, I'd probably just wait until the inevitable series 5 guidebook is released - I'd be seriously surprised if that didn't describe him as a companion. - Goldenboy (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rory is a companion? Random section-break[edit]

< I don't recall the word "companion" being used in the episode. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
My point exactly! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Have a look at Necessary and sufficient condition. My criterion is sufficient. Not necessary. Hektor (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your "criterion" isn't even sufficient. See Fallacy of the undistributed middle. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< 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)[reply]

Ok so it's WP:OWN after all. Thanks and have fun with your Tag team. Hektor (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiight—you're absolutely sure it's not WP:CON instead of WP:OWN? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That is one of the world's least reliable sources, actually. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The doesn't look reliable. magnius (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh, dear! I'll just go and add this source now. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 07:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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?

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)
Well, you would say it, and I would say it, but what you and I say have no authority (unless what you or I say gets published in a reliable source). Anyway, there is no "definition" as such written on here but rather a "description". And "reliable sources" is Wikipedia's policy, so it's not "rubbish" insofar as it's required of us, and if we don't do it then someone will come around and start deleting things. DonQuixote (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< I'm tempted to close this thread, because it's just repeating itself over and over. If anybody misunderstands or disagrees with the next sentence, please briefly explain why, and I'll try to help. Wikipedia's content policy requires that a reliable source is listed to verify every single assertion contained in an article, and people's individual opinions on what constitutes companion status are not reliable sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is a case of WP:IGNORE. By it's definition stated on this very wiki a companion is someone who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor. Furthermore, the term "companion" derived from the fandom therefore, it IS people's individual opinions on what constitutes companion status... that constitutes companion status. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I'm not seeing how describing Rory as a "companion" before a reliable source is found constitutes improving or maintaining Wikipedia? TFOWRpropaganda 00:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's generally accepted by the fandom (who dictates what a companion is) that Rory is a companion and to not state such is preventing the maintenance and improvement of the wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The only thing that says Rory isn't a companion is the rules which can and are encouraged to be ignored. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignored for the purposes of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Again, it isn't clear how describing as Rory as "a companion" improves or maintains the article. Is there some reason that what you believe "fandom" generally accepts should trump finding a reliable source? TFOWRpropaganda 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear... on an article about the companions of Doctor Who... how including a companion of Doctor Who who should be listed but is not is improving or maintaining Wikipedia? I don't understand how else I can clarify that... Also, "fandom" trumps a reliable source because fandom is general knowledge. Furthermore, companion is a fandom (read: non-canon) description, therefore what co-star can be described as a companion is decided by the fandom. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about the companions of the Doctor, it's about an episode "The Vampires of Venice". In what way would changing Rory's description improve the readers understanding of "The Vampires of Venice"?
We'll have to agree to disagree about fandom trumping reliable sources.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just covering the whole general discussion of Rory as a companion as this is the main discussion (actually being directed here from another discussion page). But nonetheless, Rory fallaciously not being listed as a companion here also means the article needs to be improved and maintained. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rory fallaciously not being listed as a companion here also means the article needs to be improved and maintained
OK, three points here:
  • That it's "fallacious" is your opinion, and to date you've not offered anything that would convince me that it is improper to list Rory as a "guest".
  • Secondly, how does Rory not being listed as a "companion" harm the article - or indeed any episode's article? Is "guest" inaccurate? If so, why?
  • Thirdly, what's the rush? Why not wait until the BBC (the good folk who produce Doctor Who) say Rory's a "companion"?
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it's an opinion, as is you thinking that without the information, the article is not harmed. It's all about your sense of judgment. So long as known information is missing or incorrect, the article is damaged. Likewise, there haven't been any provided reasons why Rory SHOULDN'T be listed as a companion other than a rule prevents it, which can be ignored.
Also, I'm just discussing the point it as it's come up. There really is no reason he shouldn't be listed since it's generally accepted knowledge. Would you feel better if he were listed as a companion with a [citation needed] attached? 67.58.191.105 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "known information" is missing or incorrect? That "fandom considers Rory to be a companion"? Why should a casual reader care what dedicated fans believe? Note that I'm not dismissing fandom (I've even said elsewhere that I personally consider Rory to be a companion!) - I've been a Doctor Who fan myself since back in the day...
There have been plenty of reasons provided why Rory shouldn't be included as a companion until a reliable source states that he is a companion. You chose to invoke WP:IGNORE, rather than accept policy. Fair enough. Since WP:IGNORE is geared round improving and maintaining the encyclopaedia, I'm trying to ascertain from you how your proposed change would improve or maintain Wikipedia. WHy does it harm this article if readers can't find out what a certain group of fans believe?
Really, there are better places for "generally accepted knowledge". Wikipedia is for reliably sourced, verifiable, referenced knowledge.
And, again, what's the rush? Why not wait until the BBC (the good folk who produce Doctor Who) say Rory's a "companion"?
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 16:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't harmful, as WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY state, if a claim is doubtful but not harmful, a [citation needed] can be added. This also satisfies WP:CON as a compromise will be met; it allows Rory to be listed as a companion as well as acknowledging that a reliable source has not been provided. In fact, it would actually encourage a reliable source to be found. And surely if you're not in a hurry to list him as a companion, you should be able to wait a reasonable length of time to remove the claim if a reliable source is not provided. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
< I've never read such crap in my life. What do you think the point of WP:V et al is? (For some light reading, check out [1] and [2]) – ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really argue with that, beyond adding that we've already been waiting a reasonable length of time. No reliable source has yet been provided. {{cn}} tags are used when dubious information is added; we're discussing whether dubious information should be added. It shouldn't. TFOWRpropaganda 17:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:CIVIL? And at any rate, by that logic, Rory should already be listed with a [citation needed]. You can afford to wait a reasonable length of time since you seem so patient (I mean, Doctor Who is over in a few weeks anyway, only two of which Rory is confirmed to be in. That's reasonable enough). By the size of this discussion, a compromise needs to be formed, and the one I've provided is satisfactory enough. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise needs to be formed, and the one I've provided is satisfactory enough. I see only you in favour of it, and two experienced editors opposed. Does that strike you as a "satisfactory" compromise? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've have far to many recent prolonged discussions with editors who don't understand WP:CIVIL to start again, other than to agree that this argument is crap.
Why should Rory-as-guest be given a {{cn}} tag? Are you saying Rory has been in every episode? Or would you agree that he's guested? Actually, I don't care. This isn't going anywhere. TFOWRpropaganda 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NVC. Furthermore, tagging him with a [citation needed] shows that no reliable source has been provided and is acknowledging that the veritably is willing to be disprove, which is the whole point of removing him without a source but without all the edit wars. It's the middle ground between removing him for not having a reliable source and adding him without providing one (which I still don't think is necessary as companions are dubbed so by the fandom, but I digress). 67.58.191.105 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that takes the 'crap' biscuit. Aside from the fact that WP:NVC isn't a policy, if you think it means, "Any one person can edit against consensus and unilaterally dictate a so-called compromise," then you are severely mistaken. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, I've been the one trying to REACH a consensus. The edit wars are still happening and you've been continuously been trying to encourage them. Being an "experienced editor" doesn't mean YOU can edit against consensus either. Pull back on the hostility a bit.
Here's my proposed solution and, against my better judgment, I'll allow you to decide the course of action and I'll agree with your decision because, to be honest, I just want this over with. Add Rory as a companion, including a {{cn}} until the 29th unless a reliable source can be provided. This should stop the continuous adding him in and taking him out while at the same time edit wars while also showing that a reliable source has not been found and needs to be added.
Bored now. Gonna go... do something else. I don't really care for discussing this further since it's probably not going to get anywhere. Do what you want. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the enforcement of clear Wikipedia policy as "encouraging" edit-wars, then yes, I have been encouraging them, and proudly. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rory is a companion? What's on TV[edit]

  • Is this a reliable source ? It is a scan of What's on TV of this week ? In assisting the Doctor, Rory becomes one of the few male companions of the Time Lord to travel in the TARDIS.Hektor (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a review of Vampires of Venice on Dr Who Online [3], scroll down to 7th May 2010, it says One scene in particular proves his worthiness as a possible companion. So only possible companion status here.
  • There's an interview with Arthur Darvill here, which I don't have time at the moment to watch. Edgepedia (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he isn't a companion, which he is for 4 episodes, why is Bruno Langley a companion in The Long Game? He didn't get a title name and yet he flew in the TARDIS. 89.243.25.241 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the BBC say that Bruno is a companion [4]. magnius (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And BBC says also that Rory is a companion

[5] Hektor (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious, in that context it talks about the three companions as in a group of friends, use that source and The Doctor himself becomes his own companion. magnius (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've actually read the ref, I'd tend to agree. Hektor, I'm also a wee bit concerned at your edit summary here. This thread would seem to discount the "no debate" claim. The ideal would seem to be to discuss once reverted. TFOWRpropaganda 22:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another break[edit]

This [6] is very carefully phrased to avoid saying Rory is a companion. Or is this just me? Edgepedia (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just you. It doesn't look carefully phrased to me, it looks... naturally phrased? AnemoneProjectors 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 latest Doctor Who novels by BBC Books feature the Doctor, Amy and Rory, with the three on the cover picture. 80.125.175.213 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 08:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking; after all, he could be a companion in these books. Interesting the official blurb for The Glamour Chase, The King’s Dragon and Nuclear Time don't mention Rory. Edgepedia (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't say that rory is a companion, just confirms that he is in the story. magnius (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Glamour Chase, The King’s Dragon and Nuclear Time all mention Rory AND have him on the cover. Hektor (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do they say that he is a companion? No they don't, so what use are those links? magnius (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: what do (non-canon) novels have to do with one episode - or, indeed, any episode? TFOWRpropaganda 18:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... My... God...[edit]

In fiction, the work itself may serve as a primary source. We see Rory travelling with the Doctor after he was invited. Several press clippings as seen above have established Rory as a traveling companion. He also fits the definition of a companion that was established in all previous "companion or not" discussions, so I am letting CP:COMMON prevail here and state he fits our creteria. In the light os consistency, that would be the best course of action. — Edokter • Talk • 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sceptical, can you precisely outline "our" criteria, please? Ensuring, of course, that they encompass Astrid Peth and Adelaide Brooke etc. too? Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 06:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since unsourced content isn't allowed I've removed everything that isn't sourced apart from the plot. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.154.71 (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate response would have been to add {{fact|date=May 2010}} tags to the parts you find contentious. That will give other editors the opportunity to (a) discover that you find them contentious, and (b) discuss your reasoning with you. I've reverted you. TFOWRpropaganda 11:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the official position is, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information."
Or, as WP:BURDEN puts it, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed."
So I've removed most of the material in question again. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 12:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just readded one bit as it can be sourced to the review already in the article. But I agree that the removal was probably correct. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to either of TT's or Alzarian16's edits, and apologies to the IP for snarling (and noting that I'd prefer less, rather more, cruft in the article). I saw WP:POINT instead of a reasonable removal: which was my error, no one else's. TFOWRpropaganda 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Possible Sources[edit]

At the official website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw - if you mouse over the section 'Characters' it states 'Read all about the Doctor and his companions' - if you click on it it then leads to information upon The Doctor, Amy, Churchill, River Song and Rory. This seems to me to be the equivalent of the companions tab on the prior site which was accepted as evidence for the BBC regarding somewhat contentious figures such as Lady Christina. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting we add Winston Churchill as a companion? U-Mos (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally no, I would not add Churchill without another source. But that is my own Point of View rather than an opinion based upon evidence. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no evidence suggesting that he is a companion. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Sullivan's website, A brief History of Time (Travel) which has been extensively accepted as a reference throughout wikipedia pages on Doctor Who has also listed Rory as a companion. See http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/11doc.html AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source, it is a self-published source. Please stop making untenable suggestions; WP:RS is extremely well-written and clear. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 13:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how rigid it seems, if the BBC listed Winston Churchill, Rory and River Song in the characters section, complete with the tag "Read all about the Doctor and his companions", we might very well have to assume they all are, at one point or another. Given that there is nothing to confirm Churchill's status in the primary source, I suppose he is in a bit of a gray area, like Rosita, Jackson Lake and Lady Christina. As for River Song and Rory, however, this makes a very good case about adding them to the companion's list.--66.131.156.124 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it's a weak case rather than a "good" one. Think about it for a moment, if you were to use such a source on an essay paper, would you expect good marks (A) or poor marks (F) for a "source" like that? DonQuixote (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to write an essay, it'd be more about the controversial nature of the term companions and how even the reliability of "safe" sources such as the BBC is questionnable due to their motivation in milking ratings by associating a known term with a big name. I do agree that it's an incredibly poor source, just a tiny line on a website. Still, even this tiny bit of evidence is disturbing. It's the BBC, and it uses the term "companion". If you can't trust this tiny bit, can you trust anything they actually say? But anyway, the debate's grown stale as it is clear you won't budge in your position, and while I still maintain that Rory is a companion, I want you to know I understand your point and think you're right in trying to uphold wikipedia's standards.--66.131.156.124 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to write an essay, it'd be more about the controversial nature of the term companions and how even the reliability of "safe" sources such as the BBC is questionnable due to their motivation in milking ratings by associating a known term with a big name. That wasn't the question! The point is, we need to use our common sense. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to point out the fact that you couldn't decide if person A is a companion or not based solely on secondary sources, I apologise if that was unclear. --66.131.156.124 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Doctor Who Online count as a RS? because if it does then you might like to know that it lists Rory as a companion for The Hungry Earth and Cold Blood. (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Solution[edit]

Since we are half-way through series, surely the most logical thing to do, is to wait it out, posibly just say he isn't a companion, for now, and if by the end of the series if there isn't a clear line, which makes him a companion or not, then we continue this debate? Agree? Dissagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.108.207 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just closed the discussions that were restarting at Talk:Companion_(Doctor_Who) and directed them here. Some people have said that Rory is discribed as a companion on the BBC website, however I have not been able to find, so if that's your argument, please provide a link. Please also read the above, to see the sources that have already been discounted. Edgepedia (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources proposed
Which is very simular to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sfmf8, discribing everyone in the TARDIS as a companion, and
which I mentioned some time ago. However, it is difficult to treat the comment at the end as a reliable source. Edgepedia (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it noticable that the BBC themselves seem very shy to actually list him or mention him as a companion in any major way. All we have are two vague sources that are somewhat open to interpretation. For the record, I am of the personal opinion that he fits the bill as a companion, but wiki rules, and general consensus as to what counts as a companion, make this very hard to agree on. Personally I discount http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sfmf8 entirely due to the confusing idea that it makes the Doctor is own companion, but that DWC one could be usable. magnius (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the BBC were mindful of events that were to transpire in the latest episode... but that's my own guess. I agree with Magnius' analysis - I regard Rory as a companion, even if he only "companioned" in four episodes, but I'm yet to see a source that I'd be happy citing. Including tool-tips/mouse-overs implying that the Doctor is his own companion, along with Churchill... TFOWRpropaganda 10:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia uses the 'fan' based definition of companion with a large C, while the BBC never really reliably has. Thus were such with a hundred pages that treat being a Companion as some sort of role of great significance while the BBC really only cares about if they are an ongoing character, guest star or incidental actor they had to hire for several episodes. Thus Rory get's described as Amy's Boyfriend because as far as the BBC is concerned, that's far more relevant than if the fans think he fits their made up Companion criteria. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor alludes to that, below. It's not something I've really looked at - I add these articles to my watchlist when I read the articles after watching the relevant episode - but if so (and ignoring the obvious {{sofixit}} and [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] responses) I'd suggest there's some hard work ahead of us... TFOWRpropaganda 13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I know and so do most people that Rory was a companion. I know that the list on wikipedia is therefore wrong but without any reliable sources (according to you lot) there's no convincing you. Furthermore if you use the criteria that the actor's name has to be in the titles to constitute companionship, then please remove every single companion from 1963-1989. Cos they clearly aren't companions, are they. Honestly. As others have said the fact that he is presented as a companion in the series is clearly indicative of companion status. I bet if someone were to ask Steven Moffat or anyone involved in the production team if Rory was a companion, there would be a universal "Yes" (obviously that's not proveable) but the point I am trying to make, knowing that it will be ignored and more riddiculous stuff said to deny his entry, is that Rory is a companion of the Eleventh Doctor from TVOV to CB. (and hopefully in Series Six fulltime, cos I know he's coming back later on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPatrickSpiller (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the end I know and so do most people that Rory was a companion. Stop disrupting the discussion with inflammatory drivel. Please consider this a warning. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you must understand that Rory is a companion. I can accept that he can't be added on right now without a reliable source, but through reading this discussion it appears to me that some of you can't even acknowledge that he was. And what I said was not inflammatory drivel. Mostly because it was accurate. And I've had enough of your warnings, because whenever someone makes an accurate change to these pages you lot jump in and remove them even if sources are provided because to my mind the only reliable sources you accept are one's provided by yourselves. Now I'll probably get another warning for these comments but I keep my stance on these issues. --DrPatrickSpiller (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to discuss whether or not Rory is a companion. There are Doctor Who chat rooms for that sort of thing. We are discussing whether it is verifiable to list him as a companion. Any comment which doesn't address the issue of verifiability is irrelevant and disruptive to the discussion, especially ones as long and inflammatory as yours. I will not be engaging in further debate about this. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Why does it matter to you whether or not one editor believes Rory is a companion or not? I've stated several times that I believe he is; I've also stated several times that our views are completely and utterly irrelevant. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. What matters for an encyclopaedic article is reliable sources - not blogs, not fansites, not mouse-over tool-tips that suggest the Doctor and Winston Churchill are companions...
Turning your argument around: you must understand that our opinions are irrelevant.
To be honest, I simply don't understand the apparent desire to turn an encyclopaedia into a fansite.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 16:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be completely fair, this wikiproject started out as fans writing articles about Doctor Who (hell, I've done some fannish stuff in the past). There's just some resistance to the project starting to adopt wikipedia standards...which, unfortunately, sometimes goes against fan beliefs. DonQuixote (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of completeness, there is a youtube clip of the BBC Breakfast interview that has been cited as a source available at http://lifetheuniverseandcombom.blogspot.com/2010/05/arthur-darvill-rory-interview-on.html - As far as I can see its not really covering new ground, in interviewer says that their are two 'assistants' and Arthur does not correct them. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I think that this BBC Breakfast interview, in which the BBC interviewer says "the Doctor has two assistants", should close the matter. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that the discussion has gone on this long — surely at some point someone should have just invoked WP:COMMON — but opinions aside, we now have a reliable source referring to Rory as one of the Doctor's assistants. The non-fan press uses "assistant" interchangeably with "companion". This should be sufficient to include Rory as a companion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I just noticed that this review from The Guardian (surely a reliable source as well) says (emphasis added):

"The other point of this story was the introduction of Rory as a Tardis regular. .... Where do we go from here? Can the show support three lead characters – or is Rory heading for heartbreak? .... But hapless as he may be, Rory has earned his stripes and is, for now at least, full-time on the team.

It doesn't say "companion" or "assistant", but "Tardis regular" is pretty darn close.
And this news article from Sky.com refers to Rory as one of "Three New Companions For Doctor Who" (headline) or "three new assistants in the Tardis" (article). The article doesn't reveal the identity of the third companion, but it's probably River Song... which is neither here nor there. The point is that there are plenty of reliable secondary sources referring to Rory as a companion or assistant, and it's silly that this isn't reflected here. I'm going to be bold and restore the category to Rory Williams and other relevant pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you do that when it's contraversial? Do you just like making work for other people? There's nothing in WP:BOLD about joining in with an edit war.
It's does show the problem we have here if you have to equate 'assistant' or 'TARDIS regular' with 'companion'. None of your references even come close to saying that Rory is a companion, and the sky one is speculative. Edgepedia (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's "controversial" only because a handful of editors are holding to a ridiculously strict interpretation of WP:RS. "Assistant" has been used interchangeably with "companion" in the context of Doctor Who for decades, as noted in our own article Companion (Doctor Who) and in Category:Doctor Who companions. Here's one example of the terms being used interchangeably; if you need a more explicit reference to confirm that the two terms mean the same thing, I can dig up my copy of the Howe–Stammers–Walker Companions book, which I'm sure discusses the subject in detail.
I don't understand why the sources I listed don't suffice for a reasonable interpretation of WP:V and WP:RS. We've got a BBC interview with the actor, in which he's referred to as one of the Doctor's assistants. We've got a Sky News article saying (accurately) that he will be a companion later in the series. (You could say that it was speculative when it was published, but it has proven accurate.) We've got references to Rory as a companion from Doctor Who Confidential and Digital Spy. At this point, it really looks like this is less about WP:V and WP:RS than it is about WP:OWN. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "handful of editors" to whom you refer constituted a consensus until this latest batch of sources were identified, which, I agree, finallyclinch the issue. Note that using your Companions book + a "he's an assistant" source would be synthesis, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is (or should be) academic at this point, but I disagree that using the synonymous terms "companion" and "assistant" would constitute synthesis here. If a reliable source establishes that two terms are synonyms, we should go with that judgment unless we have another reliable source which calls that into doubt. That's just establishing terminology, not original synthesis. Fortunately, we now have sources which meet even the ridiculously high interpretation of WP:RS which was being called for, so the question is moot. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source[edit]

I really don't think that this should be necessary, but here is yet another reliable source referring to Rory as a companion. And yes, Den of Geek is considered a reliable source — at least, it was when I asked about it at RS/N last year. Now, it doesn't say "Rory is a Doctor Who companion". But it does say:

What's comparatively rare is the death of one of the Doctor's companions, but as we saw on Saturday, it can and did happen to Rory Williams. ... A heavy weight on the Doctor's conscience, but Rory's death is not without precedent. The first two companion deaths happened in the very same story...

The text is clearly referring to Rory as one of the Doctor's companions — to say otherwise is to deny plain reading. I won't restore the text immediately, in an attempt to avoid the most blatant edit warring — but I may reconsider if it's not restored tomorrow. There's a preponderance of evidence from reliable sources now, and I don't see how anyone can say otherwise. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you now, but I have changed it back at the Cold Blood article just until we can get a full consensus. Then it can be changed on the companion template, Rory Williams and the other episode articles too. I will link to this section on the project discussion. U-Mos (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is any good, but he's also referred to as such by Rick Marshall of MTV, who notes of "The Vampires of Venice": "some of Rory's scenes feel a bit forced, pushing you to take him seriously as a new companion for The Doctor" and of "Amy's Choice": "this was a great character-development episode, and really seemed to bring Rory into the fold as a legitimate traveling companion for The Doctor." Frickative 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is possible to continue to question all of these sources, I think we need to bear in mind that Rory being a companion should not actually be a particularly exceptional or contentious fact. Therefore I think its fair to go along with the general tide of material indicating that he is a companion, even if they don't explicitly spell it out. Of course this can be revised should a good source comes along specifically denying it. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's facts got to do with wikipedia? Veribility not truth - for the very good reason without reliable secondary sources we are putting ourselves anonymously up as experts on the subject. Personally, I have noted that recently the BBC have been slow to label 'companions', perhaps as a reaction to the end of the last series, so perhaps we need to be reluctant too, especially in the middle of a story. Perhaps we will know more about Rory on 26 June.
However, finally the MTV and Den of Geek sources look like they actually say what we have been looking for, i.e. Rory = companion, no fudge. The question is if they are reliable. No rush to change the article though, let's get everyone's opinion. Edgepedia (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These two certainly make it clear that they think Rory's a companion, and they look reliable to me. So I'd say they're enough to include the information now, although I agree that we should get a consensus first. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, if we are going for consensus based upon provided sources, I would say that YES Rory is a companion. magnius (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although it really shouldn't be needed at this stage, here's yet another source explicitly referring to Rory as a companion: in the summary of "The Vampires of Venice" in Doctor Who: The TARDIS Handbook by Steve Tribe (BBC Books, ISBN 978-1-846-07986-3), p. 124:

    "[The Doctor] makes a quick detour to pick up Rory from his stag-do, then takes his two companions on a proper romantic date..."

    Can we please close this discussion and restore Rory as a companion now? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the best source so far to me. I'm saying use the denofgeek and BBC book sources and add him as a companion. U-Mos (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, the book looks just like the kind of secondary source we need more of on these pages, IMO. Does the book say anything about Jackson Lake? A (smaller) discussion about his status is ongoing at Talk:Companion_(Doctor_Who)#other_non_souced. Edgepedia (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no. I also checked the DWM "Specials" Companion, which says that Rosita was "designed as an archetypal, brave companion" but refers to Jackson Lake/David Morrissey as "guest star" and the like. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming pedantic. The sources are more than good enough. In fact, the case is self-evident, anyway.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being self-evident isn't good enough because WP:V must be met. However I agree that the sources presented are good enough, and by some margin. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to leave it slightly longer than 7 hours from posting your last source for people to reply. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to discuss? Is anyone really going to say that a BBC Books source referring to Rory as a companion isn't good enough? At some point it becomes ridiculous. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only people disagreeing up to this point are Wikipedia Trademark Pain in the Ass Pedants upset that the common people are editing "their" articles. Thank you Josiah for making the necessary corrections to the articles in question. 68.33.34.2 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm happy with the TARDIS handbook reference, provided by Josiah Rowe. For the record: I'm happy to use this source to describe Rory as "a companion". And want to thank everyone involved for their patience while this issue was being resolved. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 12:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The"[edit]

Oh dear. Official BBC press release calls this episode "The Vampires of Venice", official Doctor Who website calls it "Vampires of Venice". [7] (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)[reply]

We...wait until next week? DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best. I would say, however, that if that one "the" version on the DW site is changed, that's probably good enough to move the page imo. U-Mos (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The official site has amended itself to "The Vampires of Venice", FYI. U-Mos (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

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)[reply]

Ooh look at this!

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/AnyArticle/p.rdt?URL=http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE52B4RU20090312

Isn't that lovely? Tasty monster (=TS ) 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the British public has suddenly acquired the ability to see forwards in time I fail to see how the viewing figures relate to the critical reception. Greglocock (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is too fat[edit]

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)[reply]

Of course he is![edit]

Rory is the betrothed of another companion, is invited to travel, is welcomed into the TARDIS as a guest and is treated as a valuable friend by the Doctor. He's a comedy sidekick, but so is Mickey, who never appears to come close to marrying Rose.

There should be a presumption that, if the Doctor freely invites somebody into the TARDIS ane the guest accepts and takes part in an adventure, that person is a time traveller in the TARDIS (a companion if you will). Stowaways and whatnot can be judged on the evidence. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the original research. Now if you can provide a reliable source to corroborate all that, then it'll be perfect.
Anyway, please continue this in the above thread talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ?.DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for technical reasons I can't edit that discussion, sorry to be irritating. The points I raise aren't original research, but perhaps my reasoning is. I think we should use the well established term "guest star" and refer to actors rather than characters, but perhaps it's too late to suggest that. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tasty monster. Of course it's OR to say he's a companion because of episodic events, but it's not OR if we have a source defining companion and Rory fits that definition within the show. U-Mos (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I believed there was one at Companion (Doctor Who). My mistake. U-Mos (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llancaiach Fawr[edit]

I just want to point out that the scenes where the vampire girls break through the windows when the team are sitting around a table is shot on the ground floor of Llancaiach Fawr Manor link to photos from that days filming and that some of the underground tunnel scenes were filmed in caerphilly castle link to photos of filming in for that day too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.206.8 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible 10th Doctor's Actor Reference[edit]

There is a possible reference to David Tennant when the Doctor says he owes *something* to Cassanova, who was played by David Tennant in the 2005 Tv Serial. I don't know if this is worth mentioning or not. --Jameshibbard (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im Glad you could be so helpful....--Jameshibbard (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See our policy on original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 14:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See our policy on civility. --121.215.57.232 (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was in no way incivil, though feel free to take this further if you wish. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Saturnynians"?[edit]

What's the source for calling the aliens "Saturnynians"? They are never identified as such in the episode, the BBC website identifies them only as "Vampires", "Vampires of Venice" or "Sisters of the Water".[8] A Google search for "Saturnynians" returns only Wikis and blogs. Seems as though this is a fan designation we shouldn't be using. SixFourThree (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

They're from Saturnyne, so it's a pretty basic designation. They were only pretending to be vampires, so it's less accurate to call them vampires than Saturnynians. magnius (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing that there is some logic behind it. But why not "Saturnynites"? It's an arbitrary designation, one which appears to have been created by fans. Where's the reliable source to overrule the BBC? SixFourThree (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]
I agree. U-Mos (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky one to be sure. I guess "Vampires" is the only sourceable word, so perhaps that is what we should name them in the article after all. magnius (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am against using Vampire, as the whole point is they are not. Taking http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/characters/Vampires for example, it starts with "There really are vampires: the Doctor's met them. But the vampires of Venice are something else". Perhaps "survivors of Saturnyne" might be a better label, it is a description rather than a name but at least it is both sourced to the BBC and not confusing. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, the article currently does not call them vampires after they are explained as from Saturnyne. U-Mos (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. To be fair I think its far more of an issue on List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens than on this page. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it there as well. As it stands "Vampire" gives the reader links to Vampire (Doctor Who), which covers the saturnyne bunch from this episode, and also gives a "see also" link to here and State of Decay. The link you provided above does desginate them as vampires even though they are actually something else, so really the only other thing we could call them would be "Vampires of Venice" or "Sisters of the Water", the latter of which only covers the female of the species (to call them "Children of the Water" or similar would be as much OR as Saturnynians). U-Mos (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I still don't think its an ideal situation, but as they don't currently have a verifiable name I don't really see what else can be done. Thanks. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Monster profile video on the official website (narrated by John Barrowman as Captain Jack) calls them Saturnynians. (81.98.17.4 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Vampires of Venice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Never reviewed a Doctor Who episode before. The revival really put me off the whole franchise. :(

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Grand. Made a few minor changes here and there but nothing major needed.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    I'm pretty iffy about refs 20, 21 and 22. They're only citing the fact that the episode was on the relevant releases, so it'd be better to source that to the liner notes for those releases than to an external site which could be seen as advertising a product for purchase. {{Cite DVD-notes}} would work perfectly for that.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Not a problem.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Seems fair to me.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    History is uncontroversial.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are grand. One free, one with a solid rationale.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Just gonna hold this one for now - I'd fix the citation thing myself but I'm not familiar with the series. If you don't actually own any of those releases then I could probably piece it together for you. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I'm not quite sure what to do about changing the ref; I own the complete season DVD (Region 1, though; not sure if it's different) and the closest thing to liner notes is the cardboard fold-out that contains a blurb by Moffat with a list of the episodes and special features on each disc. As the three-episode release is "vanilla" with no special features or anything, I'm not even sure if it has liner notes or a booklet. Glimmer721 talk 17:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally consider "liner notes" to include the back of the box too, which I assume lists the episodes. Looking at the series, the full-season DVD and Blu-ray could be cited as follows:
Doctor Who: The Complete Fifth Series (Media notes). BBC. {{cite AV media notes}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |director= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |titleyear= ignored (help)
Tweak that slightly for the smaller release by simply changing the title, and if no article is relevant to the release, removing the titlelink parameter. GRAPPLE X 18:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Think I got it done! Glimmer721 talk 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking, though...will the liner notes be able to cite when the DVDs came out? Glimmer721 talk 17:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I've seen some with the dates given in terms of the copyright information. If it turns out to be a problem, there's always the option of citing reviews of the DVD (for instance, DVD Talk is considered reliable) but I don't see anything wrong with it. Sorry for the delay, was away for the weekend. I think this is ready to pass now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice&oldid=1210141035"