Talk:Death in Heaven

Missy

"The Doctor decides she is too dangerous and moves to kill her using her own weapon, but before he can fire, a rogue Cyberman kills her."

Every time Missy kills someone with her device, they explode in a red cloud. Every time she teleports, she appears blue. In the final scene, she disappears with a blue effect. I would argue it is fairly obvious she teleported away. She even said "I know" in response to the Doctor's "You win", just before he attempts to kill her. I know this is Doctor Who and you can't be sure of anything, but I really don't see any evidence in the episode that she was killed. On the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.51.215 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is original research. Provide a reliable source that states what you believe, and it'll be added. Until then, we go on the events of the episode. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian: the line in the anonymous editor's change preceding a statement of opinion derived therefrom, which reads "Every time Missy kills someone with her device, they explode in a red cloud. Every time she teleports, she appears blue. In the final scene, she disappears [with a] blue [effect]." Need no source because they are QED. Perhaps the addition of the significance of this fact needs a reference for those who are colorblind, but you seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And aside from that, if you are one of the editors tasked with DW episodes, you'd be better off applying yourself to some of the most horrendous grammar in the galaxy, extant within them for free & with no supervisory revisions applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtelkin (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot and RS

Hi. I don't usually do much Doctor Who stuff so I don't know the conventions: sorry, then, if this is a stupid question.

Is it usual that the Plot section seems like a whole lot of "what I saw on telly last night", without any sources? I can see why is would be (and, yes, I am about to go and look at something again that I find dubious here!) but is it just me, or does this kind of unregulated cluster**** seem a little at variance with the main run of Wikipedia editing and referencing practices? I'm not trying deliberately to be provocative here, just wondering how you usually do it. Thanks, and best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The episode itself is a primary source. We can use it to describe what happens in it as long as we leave out any interpretations, which requires a secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. There does still seem to be a certain amount of guesswork etc going on - it's mostly good but I see some weird assertions and strange focuses coming and (hopefully) going. I suppose, though, that it will calm down as time passes ... early days yet. Thanks for the helpful reply DBaK (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

aaand that's me done with this article. It is so easy for it to descend into incoherent journalistsic fanzine shit. Good luck DBaK (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

DonQuixote: there are too many errors of fact in DW plot descriptions to even approach them unless one has nothing better to do. This says nothing about the "pidgin" English in which some of them are written. I realize that this is a problem with many entries across the 'pedia, but seriously, much of it reads like English as a fourteenth language, but which editors, despite their willingness to jump on others for the smallest edit of fact, often revert (which is good if it's wrong, obviously), but never seem to change the bad grammar in the process. Is there a reason someone should write up an entire NCIS (TV show) summary, for example, using semi-colons instead of commas, and mangling syntax as they go, also creating errors in what actually happens in the episode by presumed use of a thesaurus that provides them with an incorrect word-equivalent that is never edited out unless an occasional editor comes along? I cannot count the number of minor edits I've made to fix such things; yet replacing the words "Jewish Star" with the item's true name, "Magen David," which most people of 9th-grade & beyond knowledge (although admittedly not all) are familiar with gets reverted? (Yes, I did that and was. Kinda like calling a Frankfurter a Hot Dog with no mention of the fact that said "Hot Dog" is historically the grand sausage of Frankfurt, Germany. And no, I didn't do that, but I'll bet someone must have at some time.) Is there a schedule whereby Wikieditors are assigned grammar duty? Seems like an English-language site should at least minimally uphold the rules of informally proper English (any country's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtelkin (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hint that Master will return

After Tardis disappears in last scene, and tardis-departing-sound goes quiet, there is tone played four times (in sync with skateboarding guy). Very obvious reference to the fact that master has four beats, time lord heart beat, playing in his head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.115.85 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced, original research, and from a Whovian perspective, I'm pretty sure that the drumbeat disappeared at the end of The End of Time. And I counted - it's six times (since it starts before the TARDIS sound stops), so I think you're reaching for straws. And Moffat already talked about the Master returning in Doctor Who Extra. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Alex. But (1) why not remark to the commenter on the comment's poor usage (no articles?!?!? seriously!)? And, (2) What Moffat, Davies, or anyone else says is not canon, but mostly irrelevant gossip (and always so when it comes to matters of interpretation); what appears on the screen is (unfortunately, sometimes) canon. Or would you sacrifice the entirety of film studies & literary interpretation to the school of "authorial intent"? An overly simplistic attitude only satisfies those who are overly simplistic themselves, and there does come a point where the stating of a fact is not the fact stated....Rtelkin (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What? You're replying to a discussion (multiple discussions, actually), that's over two years old. Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 08:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Doctor being called "Huey," diminutive of Hugh

I added this small detail because I think the audio is clear and it is an interesting moment, rather like that in The Armageddon Factor when Drax, #4's old school chum calls him "Theta Sigma," we have at least what is a nickname of the Doctor here and it is worth documenting in the episode's page. If anyone wants to delete it, I'm curious as to why. Is he saying "yooey" as a diminutive of "yoo-hoo"? Do people even say such a thing? It really sounded the most sensible was that he called out the name "Huey."

--Dgetzin (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: you removed about two days' worth of other people's work when you restored your previous version. I don't think that was a good move, and I have reverted it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply: I just checked it (1) by listening and (2) with subtitles on. Santa is calling "coo-ee!" as in this definition. So yes, it's a bit like yoohoo and no it's not interesting or worth writing up, just an incidental snippet of dialogue. Sorry. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to the reply: Had not noticed that granularity of revert is set to article rather than set to user, thank for that important update.

On coo-ee --- of coures, an incidental bit of UK slang that my yankee eyes have read more often than I have heard spoken, all clear now.

--Dgetzin (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph starting "Outside, the Doctor reels from the revelation that Missy, ..." :: query

• "The public appears unconcerned by the arrival of the Cybermen. They turn out to be UNIT soldiers," :: It seems unlikely that UNIT men would dress as Cybermen, and I saw no proof of this when I watched the episode. Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart being revived as a Cyberman did happen, but that is another matter. Unless some others of the Cybermen were previously-dead UNIT men revived as Cybermen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The "They" part in "They turn out to be UNIT soldiers" is obviously meaning the public, not the Cybermen. AlexTheWhovian (talk)

They "do not turn out to be UNIT soldiers". There is just a brief scene where Osgood pretends to be a tourist, but clearly most of the people looking at the Cybermen in that first scene are just passers-by. I have reverted to the previous version. Mezigue (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Santa Claus or Father Christmas

Toward the end of the plot section, it mentions the point of "Santa Claus" showing up to tell the doctor he's not fine. Being as I am from the US but knowing that obviously the show is British, I'm wondering whether this should be Father Christmas or not. I'm unaware of any distinctions between Santa and Father Christmas, and would just go by the nationality of the article subject in lieu of any other disambiguating details. Any Brits, international folks, or wiki aficionados want to comment on this? -- Macks2008 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

He's credited as Santa Claus in the end credits. DonQuixote (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Archive footage vs cameo

@Asgardian: There are tonnes of episodes that use archive footage. There's only a handful of episodes that have cameos--this isn't one of them. A cameo is Deep Breath (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)