Talk:Spearhead from Space

Novelisations

Do we really want covers of the novelisations here? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's the Japanese one, which is a masterpiece! Angmering 22:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that this is something we have to decide in general for story articles, because so far we've only had the screenshot in most cases. I personally don't find it aesthetically pleasing to have the cover in addition to the screenshot, but consensus may disagree, which is why I'm soliciting opinions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'll give a proper answer. :-) No, I don't think we need the covers, and I also think a fair use claim for them might be dodgy. Angmering 23:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the fair use claim (IANAL, and I don't really understand the ins and outs of fair use anyway), but putting that aside I think that having a novelisation cover is actually rather nice — especially if we can get the older covers with the Frank Bellamy art. In the pre-video age, the novelisations were an important element in passing on Doctor Who lore, and I think it's appropriate to recognise them, if the rules and law allow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Chris Achilleos. Bellamy only worked for the Radio Times.--The Brain of Morbius 23:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's who I meant. D'oh! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe novelisation covers are fair use because the article discusses them. Also, this one is notable on its own. 23skidoo 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The white space beside the cast list is a good place for another image. I like the screenshot, but I don't think we should preclude other images (although I'm a big fan of keeping images right-aligned). —Whouk (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's all fair enough - I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but enough that I wanted to gauge other people's views on this. I still think we should continue to stick to one screenshot, but a novelisation scan is okay. Cool. --09:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is to be used it should be in the relevant section, which in this case is the notes section. Also I think it should be a bit smaller but that is a minor issue. Tim! 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yuck, no. If the article had a separate section on the novelisation, then that section could maybe have a (much smaller) image, but as it stands, I don't see anything justifying it. --KJBracey 12:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not even note #4?

There are three separate questions here: whether we are permitted by Wikipedia's interpretation of fair use to have the image, whether we want to have the image, and if we do want it where it should be located and how prominently. I'm not qualified to address the first. We have a difference of opinion on the second (I say keep it). As for the third, is it really better to have empty space next to the cast list than to fill it with an image? Maybe it's just a different aesthetic, but I kind of like having the novelisation cover in that blank space. (That said, I do recognize that it would be more appropriate to put it next to the relevant note.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an image there is desirable. Although it would be next to its note in the Notes section, it would also be alongside several other notes to which it is as irrelevant as to the cast list. —Whouk (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bessie or not?

While I don't think the name "Bessie" was actually applied to the yellow roadster in Spearhead, I'm pretty certain the car that appears in this episode was the some vehicle later driven by the Doctor because he makes the Brigadier buy it for him as one of the conditions of his joining UNIT at the end of the serial. I'd like to get other views from people on this. And it's what's on screen that counts, not novels for fanlit (although Doctor Who is admittedly less strict in the canon department than Star Trek when it comes to this). I'm quite willing to stand corrected. 23skidoo 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just did what I should have done before I made my edit. A viewing of the DVD gives the following info. The car in question shows up about twelve minutes into episode two. The Doctor makes off with it and drives it to UNIT HQ. In a scene just before this one of the UNIT guards comments that it belongs to one of the bigwig medical people who has just shown up. It is red and its hood (er bonnet) is noticeably longer than Bessie's. It does not appear onscreen again but at the end of episode four, when the Doctor is negotiating his terms, he DOES (my bad) ask about keeping it and the Brig says "No Doctor, it has to go back to its owner". The Doctor than wheedles the Brig into getting one like it and asks when they can go get one. The Brig says that they have to get the Doctor's papers first and then says that he doesn't even know his name and we get the famous "John Smith" with smile as closing credits come up. Sorry that I wasn't more thorough to begin with. I'll make a stab at altering the info given but I won't mind any changes that improve what I do. MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a case of the memory cheating on my part. I do stand corrected. If you haven't already, please feel free to reinstate your original information. I would do so myself however another editor has already made a change, so I can't revert my revert. 23skidoo 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tattoo note

I've put everything into sections, but I can't think where to put the tattoo note. Also my organising of sections might need a little adjusting. --Thelb⁴ 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing the tattoo in The Sillurians. I don't have my own copy to check, but will check with some die-hard Whovian friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.31.4 (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's in The Silurians, when the Doctor is wearing a t-shirt to do some physical work towards the end of the serial (I never even noticed it here until somebody told me to look for it). However, statements that the third Doctor (the character, understand) is the only one with the tattoo astound me, as I don't think that so much as one other Doctor (and no chance all of them) ever had his arm bared enough to make such a determination possible. Especially if I'm right in thinking it's on Pertwee's upper arm, circa the bicep, rather than, as claimed, his forearm, i.e., between the elbow and wrist. Isn't all this right? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The tatoo is on his forearm as can be seen here [1]. DonQuixote (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your link is futzed. Wouldn't finish (including by giving up and putting up a "Can't display the page" page). I noted the core site address, went there, followed directions and found a picture from The Silurians of Pertwee in t-shirt. Same full address as your link, so I don't know what the problem was. The tattoo is indeed just below the elbow, and my apologies for my faulty memory. The location just might have been visible on the fourth Doctor after his interrogation in The Deadly Assassin, and I recall that at some time the sixth was in a similar state of slightly up-turned shirt-sleeves (that is, the relevant part of the arm just might have been in view). I really doubt that we could see that close to the elbow, though. I mean, look how close to that joint the tattoo is in that picture. In any event, I still deny that the first, second, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth Doctors (except for the last's nude clone, but cloning does not replicate tattoos, so its absence there proves nothing) ever had their right arms so bared, making it impossible to support the claim that the third was the only Doctor to sport it. --Ted Watson (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC) My bottom line, which I somehow failed to specify—my apoogies—is that I feel that a statement which any knowledgable Who fan knows can not be supported should not be in an article as a flat fact, even if said statement can be well cited and there is no published and therefore citable specific statement to the contrary (as much as I value my copy of The Discontinuity Guide, this is not the authors' worse mistake); that would be a disservice to anyone who uses this encyclopedia as an information source and is a detriment to its credibility. --Ted Watson (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Auton stories

Template:Auton stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 14:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Gestalt?

Instead of the line in the Plot section reading "being part of the Nestene gestalt consciousness" would it be better if it said "being part of the Nestene collective consciousness", like the Borg are in the various Star Trek versions? Thought I would ask it here rather than just changing it. Quizman1967 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Many books merely have "Nestene consciousness"; but one states "a Nestene—a member of an alien collective intelligence" (Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 1: The Programmes. London: Target Books. pp. 62–63. ISBN 0 426 20139 6.); and another states "a huge octopoid creature – the collective being of the Nestenes" (Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1996). Doctor Who The Handbook - The Third Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 51. ISBN 0 426 20486 7.), so for the word gestalt to be used, a reliable source which uses that word should be found. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Concerning the following paragraph, which I have copied here verbatim:

The story was repeated in its original format on Friday evenings on BBC1 in July 1971. It became the first ever broadcast of Doctor Who outside of its typical Saturday evening slot. This is confirmed on the production notes for the DVD release of the special edition of the story and noted in the DVD commentary by Terrance Dicks, the show's script editor. The story was later repeated in BBC2 in 1999.

I have problems with this. The first two sentences are cited to a blog: ignoring the guideline that blogs are largely not acceptable as sources, this ref supports only the fact that episode 1 was repeated on Friday 9 July 1971. It does not support any of the following: (i) that the whole story was repeated; (ii) that the original format was followed; (iii) that subsequent episodes were also repeated on Fridays; (iv) that this was the first ever broadcast of Doctor Who outside of its typical Saturday evening slot.

Now, published books such as those by Howe & Walker can be used to support most of the first sentence; but cannot be used to support "original format", since it is known that the production line scene has two different soundtracks (one has Fleetwood Mac's "Oh Well, Part 1", the other doesn't) - can we be sure that both broadcasts used the same version? This book (and others) don't say anything about DW not having previously been broadcast outside of Saturdays. This can be demonstrated for original broadcasts, because it's a documented fact that the first original broadcast not to have been on a Saturday was Castrovalva in 1981; but that doesn't take repeats into account. We need a source which explicitly states "the first ever broadcast of Doctor Who outside of its typical Saturday evening slot", or either something having the same meaning; failing that, we need something that explicitly states that SFS was the first DW story to be repeated.

The third sentence, This is confirmed on the production notes for the DVD release of the special edition of the story and noted in the DVD commentary by Terrance Dicks, the show's script editor is observational comment and does not belong in the prose. If it's intended to be used as a reference, it should be formatted as such. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the saddest posts I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Genuinely tragic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMOC (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

First a highly detailed statement about edits that are in question is not sad. The lack of detail in the blog makes it use dubious at best. The notability of "the first ever other than on a Saturday" is slight and barely encyclopedic, a blog is probably the best place for it. I cannot find mention of the repeat in the liner notes for the DVD and, if Dicks mentioned it, it would be nice to know which episode so that we don't have to work our way thru all seven. It is well documented that the first episode to be repeated was "An Unearthly Child" (the episode not the whole story) on 30 November 1963 and the first story repeated in total was The Evil of the Daleks in June, July and August 1968. Yes I know that these were on Saturdays but they are at least notable. Be aware that there are other places on the net that this info can be written about but WikiP has certain requirements to justify inclusion. FWIW running around making "I am a victim" posts is wasting time that could be better spent doing research. MarnetteD | Talk 20:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources in which to find this information.

The Howe-Stammers-Walker Handbooks, "The Handbook: The First Doctor" and "The Handbook: The Second Doctor and also David J. Howe & Stephen James Walker's "The Handbook: The Third Doctor". These were published in 1994, 1997 and 1996, respectively. (Yes, the Third Doctor Handbook was published before the Second Doctor Handbook.)

According to these books, these were the order in which episodes of "Doctor Who", featuring the first three Doctors, were repeated:

"An Unearthly Child" episode 1 - repeated 30.11.63 (Saturday)

"The Evil of the Daleks" episode 1 - repeated 08.06.68 (Saturday) episode 2 - repeated 15.06.68 (Saturday) episode 3 - repeated 22.06.68 (Saturday) episode 4 - repeated 13.07.68 (Saturday) episode 5 - repeated 20.07.68 (Saturday) episode 6 - repeated 27.07.68 (Saturday) episode 7 - repeated 03.08.68 (Saturday)

"Spearhead From Space" episode 1 - repeated 09.07.71 (Friday) episode 2 - repeated 16.07.71 (Friday) episode 3 - repeated 23.07.71 (Friday) episode 4 - repeated 30.07.71 (Friday)

"The Sensorites" skipped a week during it's six week transmission: episode 2 aired 27.06.64, followed by episode 3 two weeks later on 11.07.64.

"The Handbook: The First Doctor" does list incorrect air dates for "The Smugglers" (it repeats the air dates for "The War Machines" ). The correct air dates for "The Smugglers" (which began Season 4) were: 10.09.66, 17.09.66, 24.09.66 and 01.10.66.

Looking at every date of every DW episode from 1963 through the end of 1971, and looking at those dates on a calendar for each of those years. The dates are already listed in wikipedia in the relevant pages. Alas, "wikipedia is not a reliable source". Based on that comment (copyright RedRose) EVERY Doctor Who story page needs to be cited as there is not a single reference citing the correct dates on any page.

According to the first three "The Handbook: " books, the repeated episode of "Spearhead From Space" episode 1, which aired on 09.07.71 was THE first time ever that an episode of "Doctor Who" aired on any day other than a Saturday. TVArchivistUK (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Working through books like this and using a calendar fails WP:NOR. You need a source which explicitly states the "facts" in question.

As for your comment "wikipedia is not a reliable source". Based on that comment (copyright RedRose) ... I urge you, as I have done several times before, to read WP:CIRCULAR, none of which I wrote.

Concerning EVERY Doctor Who story page needs to be cited as there is not a single reference citing the correct dates on any page - there already are such refs. See, for example, Spearhead from Space#Production, there are two refs at the bottom of that box. You will find a similar box on virtually all the other 150 articles on stories of the Classic series (Shada excepted), and they all have two or three (occasionally four) refs at that position. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As well as the points that Redrose64 has made there are still WP:NOTABILITY problems. Was it remarked on at the time? Did it change peoples viewing habits> If not then it is a piece of trivia that falls into the category of "trainspotting". Since the 70s the show, whether it be original airings or repeats, has been broadcast on various days of the week. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong with your finding this interesting and there are other places on the web where you can make this known. Blogs, chat rooms and, perhaps, the Tardis Wikia are all available to you. MarnetteD | Talk 14:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spearhead from Space. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121223081938/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/spearheaddvd.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/spearheaddvd.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gallifreyone.com/episode.php?id=3a

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

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)