Talk:The Pyramid at the End of the World

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

Raoultella planticola[edit]

Although not given in the dialogue of the episode, the name "R. planticola" can be seen on the screen of Agrofuel's computer.

It would seem appropriate to explain this allusion: it is a reference to Raoultella planticola (a.k.a. Klebsiella planticola), a real-life bacterium that was the subject of a genetic engineering experiment in the 1990s to enhance its ability to break down organic plant matter to ethanol. Claims have been widely made (though they may or may not be scientificly accurate) that this could have led to the scenario depicted in the episode. These claims have to some extent made their way through to popular exposition, eg clickbait articles such as "10 Recent Times the World Almost Ended" [1] (SyFy wire, 15 Jan 2014) where it was the third of the ten. Jheald (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be so, but you still need a reliable source, to back this claim up within the article. -- AlexTW 09:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you think needs sourcing?
Let's break it down:
  • The name "R. planticola" can be seen on the screen of Agrofuel's computer.
-- directly verifiable from the transmission.
-- "R. planticola" is a standard way of writing "Raoultella planticola", in the same way that "H. Sapiens" is a standard way of writing "Homo sapiens". A google search for "R. planticola" entirely returns hits for Raoultella planticola, so there is no ambiguity. "R. planticola" uniquely refers to this particular organism.
  • Raoultella planticola was the subject of a genetic engineering experiment in the 1990s to enhance its ability to break down organic plant matter to ethanol. When tested in non-sterile (ordinary) soil, it was found that the modified bacteria caused mass plant death from the ethanol production. Some have speculated that without the independent test, the genetically modified bacteria might have been introduced in nature and then could have spread to contaminate the biosphere where it would cause worldwide plant death.
-- see citations 24 to 28 of the article Raoultella planticola
  • This is similar to the scenario depicted in the episode.
-- In fact, this is exactly the scenario spelt out in the episode. Is it original research to make that comment? Or a statement of the bleedin' obvious?
The purpose of this article, and its explanations of allusions in the episodes, is surely more than just the regurgitation of spoonfed pap from the press office.
Explanation of the Doomsday clock allusion would be appropriate, regardless of whether it had been drawn attention to by the press office.
The allusion to R. planticola is more subtle, but we can still spot it and explain it. Jheald (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it original research to make that comment? Or a statement of the bleedin' obvious? Yes. It is original research if a reliable source is not included alongside the original information in the article. Cheers. -- AlexTW 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the job of an encyclopaedia to spot and explain things. An encyclopaedia's purpose is to cite and summarise secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If the objection is to the claim that "this is similar to the scenario depicted in the episode", then this (diff) should be no problem. Jheald (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't talk about this episode. DonQuixote (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it requires the viewer to have to freeze-frame to read a name, and then subsequently research what it means, it is definitely OR. Even if the name was said, but not given context, it would still also be OR. (If for example, they used the countdown on the clocks but didn't reference the Doomsday Clock, we could not make that leap of logic.). --MASEM (t) 14:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slight disagreement, if it had been spoken, we'd say they said it in the plot and hyperlink it as that information is probably in its own article. And since I'm arguing on a hypothetical anyway: when/if a reference is found, I suggest it isn't made an outside reference but rather have a footnote on the word "super-bacterium" in the plot, saying the label can be seen, and what it refers to as briefly as possible (if a hyperlink covers it, so be it)--but only, as everyone else says, when a reference to this being there in the episode is published. @Jheald:It was the same thing with the Tenth Doctor's micro-appearance in The Name of the Doctor. Most people never see it unless they are told it's there and re-watch. No ref confirming it, doesn't get mentioned (much to my own disappointment).ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is getting into TV Tropes-level of detail. There is a reason we'd like to see third-party sources so that they establish the importance of these factoids that otherwise could be figured out with some research. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting question, as to what makes something significant. On the one hand, you're right: the name isn't strongly flagged up to viewers, so unless they were already aware of R. planticola there is nothing that would particularly make it impinge on their consciousness, watching the episode. In that sense, it probably did have even less impact on the immediate viewer reception of the episode that "factoids" such as the made-up-name of the country had been used before, or that the script included one of the most often repeated lines from My Fair Lady -- unless, as I said, a particular viewer happened to be aware of the R. planticola story, which probably very few were.
But on the other hand, from the point of view of construction of the episode, the "R. planticola experiment almost ended the world" meme is what informed the entire bio-lab half of the plot -- so that the ethanol production by the bacterium, for example, that leads to the denouement, becomes not a contrived convenience of the scriptwriter, but instead something that stems from the basic conception of the properties of the actual genetically engineered R. planticola. It's also apparent that, for at least some viewers, the realisation (perhaps some time after viewing the episode) that the lab story drew its inspiration from an actually-suggested real-world scenario, name-checked on-screen by the production team, gave the episode a significant additional frisson. (For example, these two bloggers: [2] [3]: "... the dark middle episode ... And when I say dark? I mean dark. For a start? There’s the simple fact the episode has an element of truth to it." / "By the way, someone did their homework in this episode ... the writers didn't just pull a fictional threat out of their asses, they based the episode on actual science. Well done!")
I do understand a desire for an article not to be overwhelmed with factoids of marginal interest. As I think you've suggested to me in the past, Masem, there is more value in us finding significance in information that is not just storyline minutiae, but speaks to real-world context, background, production and reception. The background of this episode in the real-world R. Planticola meme fits squarely into that second category, I would suggest. Jheald (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to cite a reliable source for that. Just a reminder, an encyclopaedia is a tertiary source. DonQuixote (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don, the material you removed was fully sourced. "R. planticola" was shown on screen, and this is what R. planticola signifies.
The question is whether the observation is worth including -- that is a discussion about editorial judgment.
The ultimate point of an encyclopedia is to be useful to readers. Sourced explanation of the meaning of "R. planticola", a real-world reference, it seems to me is exactly the value the "outside references" section is intended to add. Jheald (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's two separate issues. One is, can we, without OR, acknowledge that the show, even for the briefest moment, named "R. planticola". Technically, yes, it's not OR, but we also consider things that require "freeze frame analysis" to be a bit more interpretive from the level of a general reader who is not going to freeze frame a show to find something. That it, it is not immediately obvious to a casual viewer that exists. So we're really like a third-party source to help there.
The second issue is then asserting why "R. planticola" was picked. Yes, we can see by simple research the bacteria's effects are very similar to what the plot of the episode shows, and knowing the writers, this was very much likely intentional (rather than randomly selecting a name from a list). But that said, we don't know if that was intentional or not, despite my money being on "intentional". It is definitely OR to assume they picked this specific bacteria because its effects mirrored the episode's plot. That is definitely where we need a third party to make the connection on the allusion, and something we cannot do. If the first point, about the freeze-frame aspect, was considered okay to include, the best we would still be able to do is wikilink to the term (since it is legit) but can't make any other statements about it without engaging in OR/SYNTH. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP:SYNTH page, we can say that the name "R. planticola" was shown, and we can say that there is a meme that an experiment on R. planticola nearly caused the end of the world (which is what 2/3 of our article on Raoultella planticola concentrates on, so is arguably what R. planticola is most popularly known for). Synth arises if we take it beyond that to add our own commentary. Jheald (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't do the second point per the first sentence of SYNTH (emphasis mine) "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I know and would fully agree there was a method to the madness that they picked R. planticola here, but that's a conclusion we cannot currently source, so just noting that there was a world-ending meme around it is implying that conclusion. If a third-party made that leap of logic, great, then we can source it and we're done here, but its a very bad SYNTH to do it without sources. The first point is more just on how we're suppose to approach the summarizing of fictional works and not engage in activities (like freeze-framing) that an average viewer would not do. Obviously, if we can get some source to identify the relevance of R. planticola, that also means this freeze-framing issue is also resolved. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the material you removed was fully sourced.
It was fully sourced for an article on R. planticola. This article is not about that. You would need to cite a source that mentions the topic of this article.
And yes, mentioning the above two things in-and-of-themselves isn't synthesis, but you've put them next to each other implying a connecting that you haven't cited a reliable source for. You would need to cite a source that says that it's important for the subject of this article rather than implying it through synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that meme is the one thing that R. planticola is most popularly known for, so it doesn't seem inappropriate to me to mention it.
But do you not think you are focussing excessively on the finest application of rules, rather than how best to improve the article for readers?
The original point of WP:NOR is to stop people adding WP:FRINGE theories of dubious merit.
But here, it's hardly WP:FRINGE (does anybody seriously dispute it?) to see the whole bio-lab plot as a work-through of the R. planticola end-of-the-world meme, as noted by eg commenters on the Guardian review, Tardis wikia, and the two bloggers above -- and as hat-tipped by the production itself. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything can be challenged. The best use of energy is usually to cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Don, are you challenging it? Honestly?
R. Planticola was deliberately name-checked onscreen by the production. How does it not help our readers, to gloss what R. planticola is most popularly known for? Jheald (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it will be helpful to readers, then you should be motivated to find a reliable source. Again, please review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. DonQuixote (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you might like to review WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". Jheald (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"R. Planticola was deliberately name-checked onscreen by the production." This would need a citation, even knowing that this is exactly the type of Easter egg that DW production has put into episodes before. There's a leap of logic needed from a source, either production themselves or a third-party noting the connection, for us to make that same connection. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if we're being pedantic: "R. Planticola was deliberately name-checked onscreen by the production" -- if you think things get name-checked accidentally.
The text I would actually suggest to restore [4] would be
Although not given in the dialogue of the episode, the name "R. planticola" can be seen on the screen of Agrofuel's computer.
followed by the gloss, as before, of what R. planticola is most popularly known for. Jheald (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone here is telling you to cite a reliable source. So, please cite a reliable source. The consensus is that all things in Continuity and Outside references should be properly sourced. DonQuixote (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy to follow consensus.
But I would also like you to answer my question: How does it not help our readers, to gloss what R. planticola is most popularly known for? Jheald (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're implying the conclusion that R. planticola was specifically name-checked because of its similarity to what this story involved. If hypothetically the Doctor mentioned the species verbally (maybe calling the super-bacteria a variant of R. planticola), but no one commented on the relevancy of that, we can still wikilink to the term, and readers can guess that it was picked on purpose, but we can't imply that it was picked on purpose. Forgoing that wikilink in this case would be harmful, and its addition is trivial and completely inline with policies to otherwise include. But because it was only name-checked on-screen for a few frames, forcing its include is drastically pushing on the implication that the name was specifically picked, which we don't know was the case. Because we don't know this, nor has any other source noticed this, the absence of this information does not affect how helpful this article is to readers because no other source has acknowledge this. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, paraphrasing, you're saying that any hint of a connection between the episode storyline and the R. Planticola end-of-the-world meme (even when name-checked by the production) is not helpful to readers because sources we consider WP:RS have not yet picked up on this.
I don't think that follows.
I'm not suggesting that we go beyond saying that R. planticola was mentioned, and identifying the meme associated with it; leaving anything beyond that for readers to make up their own minds about.
But clearly the two bloggers above did find their knowledge of the reference helpful - and it would seem likely that other readers would too. Jheald (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're saying that suggesting that there's "any hint of a connection" without properly citing a reliable source is original research and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. This article should follow the rules of an encyclopaedia. If you absolutely feel the need to mention this, then you can mention it on a fan site or a wikia or any place else that doesn't follow the rules of an encyclopaedia. The most basic rule of an encyclopaedia is to cite and summarise reliable secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, that's not actually true. Most encyclopedias commission a named author to give their authoritative view of a subject, subject to peer review by further authorities. Editions of Britannica have been famous for the original articles they have commissioned.
Our fundamental priority is to be a helpful and valuable resource for our readers. All of our rules are intended to further that objective -- and subject to WP:IAR if/when they do not. Jheald (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, you're not a named author. So it's required of you to cite a reliable secondary source. And tertiary sources that aren't written by named authors cite and summarise reliable secondary sources. From WP:OR: Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.DonQuixote (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely reason" for Turemzistan[edit]

You would need to cite a reliable source that this was indeed the reason and that this is in any way notable in terms of Continuity. DonQuixote (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


As if the same writer is not reason enough and putting my words in quotation is insulting 122.106.83.10 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough reason for a tertiary source, which works by citing and summarising reliable sources. Also, didn't mean to be insulting, just pointing out that the phrase "likely reason" is textbook original research. Cheers. DonQuixote (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some writers use plot points they've used before (Terry Nation and the Daleks) and some use plot points that others created (Alpha Centauri showing up at the end of The Empress of Mars.) That is true of all long running shows - especially this one. That fact does not make this item worth noting in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to start a WP:RFC about this but you should not restore the item until you have done that. BTW it is cool that you like the show enough to have thought of this. It is perfect stuff for a blog or a fansite or your facebook page, but, this encyclopedia has policies and guidelines that need to be followed. MarnetteD|Talk 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pyramid_at_the_End_of_the_World&oldid=1207319290"