Talk:The Unicorn and the Wasp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Breaking the article up

Well done Sceptre, I like how you havn't stuck to a predictable format for this artical and thaught outside of the box, should we break it down into different sections, ie. Production, etc. This would apply to the pompaii artical too.--Wiggs (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we get something that isn't production, sure; I don't like lone sections in an article, unless it's references/external links/see also. Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VERY BIG WELL DONE, WILL!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy episode?

Surely Love & Monsters was also supposed to be mildly comedic? —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kay isn't the Midas of comedy :) I don't think L&M was meant to be comedic. DWM's feature actually does say that no-one had tried a deliberately comedic episode since The Gunfighters. Sceptre (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy nuff... just thought I ought to throw in the idea... —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Possible points to add (merged)

When Donna enters that room that hadn't been used in 40 years, there's a teddy bear there. The year was 1926 so 40 years previous would be 1886. However, the teddy bear wasn't created until 1902. Does anyone think we should mention this? Quinnfeld (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, let's not! —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I wouldn't class it as OR. I think it is quite a good point. --
p|c) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Teddy bears indead did not exsist... toy bears how ever did. It would be like stating that soup did not exsist before Campbell soup. It is just a 'brand' name. Even the old greeks used different types of mamals as toys also bears. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out mistakes without a source from the producers is original research. Saying that there's a mistake is silly, because it's clearly fictional - it was also an error to include Lady Eddison, since she never existed and thus never hosted Agatha. It's made up as a plot. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's edit page:

<!--ORIGINAL RESEARCH DELETED: This is similar to "[[The Shakespeare Code]]", in which the Doctor mentions lines that William Shakespeare was yet to write. A VALID SOURCE THAT A REFERENCE WAS INTENDED IS REQUIRED BEFORE THIS INFO CAN BE ADDED. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE -->

Oh, come off it! It's not "original research" to notice that, in both pseudohistory episodes, the Doctor and his companion have given ideas to famous writers by mentioning aspects, quotes or titles of their as yet unwritten works. It was a recurring joke throughout both episodes. Do we need "references" for things that are blindingly obvious? I didn't write that line, by the way, and when I watched the episode, the parallel with "The Shakespeare Code" struck me immediately. It's rather hard to miss. That is, for anyone with at least a basic knowledge of Shakespeare's and Christie's works. Aridd (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but
citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked." —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So when exactly is something considered so obvious that it does not constitute OR? How can anything be more obvious than this? This is describing what's seen onscreen. It's a description, not an inference. Aridd (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, it's inferring that the writer intended a direct link between each Who character to each specific Cluedo character; while it's fairly basic, it's also an unpublished fact/argument/idea. See also
WP:There is no common sense... —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't answer my question. When exactly, then, is something considered so obvious that it's not OR? And if we're going to be quoting rules, then I think
Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." Aridd (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Is it worth mentioning the parallel between the characters in this and those in Cluedo? ie. Mrs Peacock/Lady Clemency Eddison, Miss Scarlett/Robina Redmond, Colonel Mustard/Colonel Hugh, Reverend Green/Reverend Golightly, Professor Plum/Professor Peach, Mrs White/Miss Chandrakala. Or am I reading too much into this? :S DyNaMO (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would constitute
original research. —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Even though Donna drew the parallel between the two Professors herself? DyNaMO (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the other parallels (Lady Eddison/Peacock;Miss Scarlett/Redmond), though they obviously were intended, have no source and thus are "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" - OR. —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, when the strict application of rules leads to complete nonsense, isn't Wikipedia's policy that the rule in question should be ignored? The parallel with Cluedo is so obvious that even young children didn't fail to notice it. We have characters who are obvious counterparts of the Cluedo characters, and we have Professor Peach in the library with the lead piping! Aridd (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set in December? Agatha Christie disappeared on the 8th December 1926, so is it worth mentioning as a production continuity point that the outdoor scenes showed quite a few flowers in full bloom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.230.234 (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because as with most replies above I've explained, it would be
original research!!!!!!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

On original research: You can NOT publish what you think. If it is an idea you have... post it somewhere else but not on wiki. The link to Cluedo is not an idea it is actually mentioned by Donna and thus may be explained... but only the part she mentions, the professor Peach, the library and the lead piping. Other links are speculation and thus 'original research'. Unless a producer or writer of that episode actually says so and you can confirm that you can not ad it, not even if as an after thought. --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for goodness sakes. Can there be at least one episode of Doctor Who where you don't get into huge, pointless arguments on the talk page?! Why on earth would noting that there are flowers in full bloom in December be considered Original Research?! That would be like complaining about The Girl in the Fireplace, because it points out that Reinette calls herself that in the episode, even though she didn't get the nickname for several more years in real life. It's not OR; it's common sense. Perhaps you all should take a look at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules before continuing this argument. The observation is a valid, correct observation that could be added to the article as an inconsistency in the episode. Seriously, every time I look at an article from Doctor Who, you guys are arguing on the talk page over some nitpicky little thing. With The Doctor's Daughter, it was that picture; now it's supposed OR. Sheesh. Alinnisawest (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is the 'wiki way'. Discussion is life. ;-)--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete and utter WikiLawyering, "abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit". The whole point of these entries (indeed, the way most people use them) is precisely to seek out the references they may have missed. Obvious things like dating are not OR by any real sense of the imagination... --134.225.186.227 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are so right. At least that is why I visit wiki... and always check THIS PAGE for references and thoughts in the Original Research department... nudge nudge, wink wink.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a bit late to mention, but the allusion to Cluedo is verified. Watch Doctor Who Confidetial on the episode. Russel T Davies himself mentions it. Now if that doesn't count as verified information, then I can assume the wiki guidelines to be flawed. The First Darklord (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, which is why I am keeping it here on the talk page, we should be able to chalk up the Doctor and his companions "giving" lines and ideas to people like Shakespeare and Christie as nothing more than an extension of the predestination paradox. This would make sense, as the general description of a predestination paradox is when the "alterations" a time traveller makes in the past are not "alterations", but are already part of the past. So, technically, it's a modification of the predestination paradox where the events themselves do not cause Donna or Martha to spout out future works of literature, but where the result of their time travelling allows the authors to have the information which will, in the future, be passed onto them, which will, in turn, allow the event to occur. I know I didn't do a very good job of it, but when you deal with Time Travel such as in Doctor Who, you just have to chalk these things up as predestination paradox and move on without complaining about it.143.250.2.10 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More fuel for the fire - the Doctor at several points cautions Donna about using events that havent happened yet, mostly about future Christie novels. When the Doctor is poisoned with cyanide, Donna comments that she thought he was wanting a Harvey Wallbanger - a drink that wouldnt be invented for 2 more decades. None of the kitchen staff (or Christie) react to the name with confusion, and the Doctor repeats it rather loudly himself. -66.190.86.211 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Beer

Worth pointing out what seems to be one quick gag. After being poisoned, the doctor bursts into the kitchen to find the strange group of ingredients that will counter-act it. He yells "Ginger beer, ginger beer" at a shocked-looking Davenport, a charachter established to be Gay. 'Ginger Beer' is cockney rhyming slang for 'Queer'. http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Cockney+Rhyming+Slang+%2528Transliterated%2529/ Indisciplined (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I thought it was a reference to The Android Invasion (where the 4th Doctor quite liked ginger beer. -- SonicAD (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Anyone able to get info on this episode's reception?

talk) 21:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Head

The Head in the trunk in the end, could that be a reference to

The Stone Rose?--Editor510 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No, because novels aren't confirmed as canonical. Digifiend (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not confirmed as non-canonical either, and Rose did mention her
trip to Justicia in "Boom Town". So, strictly speaking, it could be a reference. But it's probably not, and it would be inappropriate for us to speculate unless we have a reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Sparkling Cyanide

When The Doctor is poisoned, Agatha sniffs his drink and exlaims: 'it's cyanide, sparkling cyanide!' Could this be a possible reference to one of her later novels, Sparkling_Cyanide? 5 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.93.168 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, they had a reference to the book Nemesis as well, earlier in the episode. I noticed a few more as well, so they probably did that as a reference to her novels. 76.200.167.5 (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: the episode's writer and Russell T Davies tried to get as many Christie titles into the dialogue as possible. And this is already covered in the article, in the "Writing" section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure

I just saw this episode in French. When they are introduced, A. Christie tells the doctor and Donna "le plaisir est dans la chasse, jamais dans la capture", which in English would be something like "it is the hunt that is fun, not the capture". I have a feeling that I heard that phrase in another dr. Who episode recently. Does anyone know if it is a recurring phrase? 91.164.2.79 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English, it's "the thrill is in the chase, never in the capture". And, to my recollection, this is the only episode in which it's used in. Sceptre (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast name error

The cast list has Hugh Curbishly whereas all other reference in cast and plot refer to Curbishley - Just a nit-pick!Rogerclarinet (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Unicorn_and_the_Wasp&oldid=1210793537"