Jump to content

Talk:Rose Tyler: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,923 edits
m Signing comment by 78.149.142.215 - "→Rose's age: "
Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)
 
(65 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkpageheader}}
{{talk header}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProject Doctor Who|class=B|importance=High}}
|action1=GAN
|action1date=15:17, 23 June 2012
|action1link=Talk:Rose Tyler/GA1
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=498995235
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=television
}}
{{Archives}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[List of Doctor Who villains#Beast|Beast]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Beast) [[Special:Diff/870415108|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Beast","appear":{"revid":57701092,"parentid":57700786,"timestamp":"2006-06-09T13:47:13Z","removed_section_titles":["The Beast","The Wire"],"added_section_titles":["Beast","Wire"]},"disappear":{"revid":870415108,"parentid":870415059,"timestamp":"2018-11-24T17:22:33Z","removed_section_titles":["Baltazar","Beast","CITEREF2007"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->
* <nowiki>[[List of Doctor Who villains#Yvonne Hartman|Yvonne Hartman]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Yvonne Hartman) [[Special:Diff/870419106|has been deleted]]. <!-- {"title":"Yvonne Hartman","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":870419106,"parentid":870415108,"timestamp":"2018-11-24T17:57:07Z","removed_section_titles":["A","Abzorbaloff","Animus","Azal","CITEREF2006","Bok","BOSS","Signora Rosanna Calvierri","Max Capricorn","The Captain","Maurice Caven","Cessair of Diplos","Harrison Chase","Matron Cofelia","Chief Caretaker","The Collector","De Flores","Destroyer","Lucius Petrus Dextrus","Dream Lord","CITEREF2010","Editor","Eleanor, Duchess of Melrose","Empress of the Racnoss","Eve","F","Family of Blood","Fendahl","Fenric","Mr Finch","Florence Finnegan","Miss Foster","CITEREFDaviesLyn2006","Gods of Ragnarok","Count Grendel","H","Yvonne Hartman","J","Jagrafess","Sharaz Jek","Madame Kovarian","L","Professor Richard Lazarus","Light","Lilith","Linx","John Lumic","Malus","Master of the Land of Fiction","Morbius","N","Nimrod","Nobody No-One","P","Lady Peinforte","Pied Piper","Prisoner Zero","Luke Rattigan","Restac","Salamander","Scaroth","Shadow","Sheriff of Nottingham","Sisters of Plenitude","Josiah Samuel Smith","Solomon","Mehendri Solon","Henry van Statten","Sutekh","Skagra","Tegana","Thawn","U","The Unicorn","Tobias Vaughn","Graff Vynda-K","W","WOTAN","War Chief","War Lord","Weng-Chiang","CITEREFKeith1985","Xoanon","Zodin (the Terrible)"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProject Doctor Who|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Fictional characters}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Television|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject London|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women}}
}}


==Julie Gardner quote==
==Uniquely?==
''Julie Gardner said on the commentary for the episode that she will "confirm to the world" that he was going to "say it back."''
Okay, so of course she's probably going to turn out the best-written companion, but it's not entirely unique for the episode to be told from their point of view. Structurally, Ian and Barbara are the main characters of ''An Unearthly Child'', after all.


Don't really know why the above sentence was cut from the end of the third paragraph of the Personality section. I'm sure I remember Julie saying something pretty much like it at the time, and the ''[[Doomsday (Doctor Who)|Doomsday]]'' article cites her for just that, sourced to the Beeb's ''[http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/mood-commentary.mp3 Commentary for "Doomsday"]''. Personally I'd put it back in, but my software won't access the BBC download site so I can't check and make absolutely sure. If anybody wants to pick this one up, please be my guest. [[User:Gnostrat|Gnostrat]] ([[User talk:Gnostrat|talk]]) 00:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Never happened again, mind, I agree there...


== Physical appearance in last on-screen scene ==
[[User:Angmering|Angmering]]


Is it significant to note the physical discrepancy between Rose's normal appearance in seasons 1-4 and her slightly-different look in The End of Time Part 2? Her eyebrows are different, and her face appears distinctly thinner. I found the discrepancy to be a bit jarring, yet I haven't seen commentary for it anywhere. I'd assume it has something to do with Piper's non-Doctor Who obligations or perhaps the amount of time to apply makeup or something versus the time available for the shot. Anyone know of a source discussing this? [[User:Macoukji|Macoukji]] ([[User talk:Macoukji|talk]]) 17:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
:*slaps forehead* You're quite right. I was actually thinking about that but forgot when it came down to writing that line. Amended. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] 22:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


==Georgia Moffett==


I've taken the refence to GM auditioning for the role out just now. I'm sure this is correct, but the source isn't reliable. In the contact section of the website linked to it states: "Please note that we are not endorsed by, or have any link to, Ms Moffett" and the biography only states that she "reportedly auditioned". It's useful information, so I'll have a look round to see if I can find another source. [[User:Eshlare|Eshlare]] ([[User talk:Eshlare|talk]]) 18:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
==Spoilers for new series==


{{Talk:Rose Tyler/GA1}}
Here's as good a place as any to discuss this. I've watched the leaked version of "Rose" and am able to expand on Rose's entry a bit, but I think we should include a spoiler warning in her entry before we do this. I won't add the additional material until after the series debut on BBC on March 26. One question is that the episode also gives some detail on the Nestene as well - do we put spoiler warnings on any new info that may arise from the new series in the other articles? -[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] 08:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


== Middle Name. ==
I notice that [[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] has taken the plunge and added some of Rose's background. How much spoilerage are people willing to tolerate? I could very well spill the beans on what happens in ''Rose'' (in fact, I've got the episode synopsis ready to go), but should I wait until March 26? --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] 17:24, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Where is it? I thought it used to be included in the article. Did the same person that disliked Buffy's middle name being included come here and remove Rose's middle name? Hmm. [[User:LeoStarDragon1|LeoStarDragon1]] ([[User talk:LeoStarDragon1|talk]]) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:I added the store details and gym bit as they are 'background' rather more than storyline-related 'spoiler'. The way the BBC have been showing clips on the main evening news as well as on kids programmes suggests that some items can certainly be considered as 'out there' sufficiently already. I suspect a number of people have episode details (and continuity errors!) ready to roll though ;-P --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp]]:[[User_talk:VampWillow|Willow]] 21:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I reworked the article a couple of years ago. The crux of it is she isn't a real person, so a "birth name" doesn't come into consideration. Her middle name isn't part of how the character is popularly known - in fact it isn't used in a single television episode - and therefore does not deserve a place in the lede or infobox, or plot summary/development/reception sections.


::The information that her creator Russell T Davies envisaged the character to have a certain middle name according to a companion guide to the series is still present within the article. Seen [[Rose_Tyler#Literature]].[[User:Eshlare|Eshlare]] ([[User talk:Eshlare|talk]]) 21:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::Cool. I just corrected the [[Regent Street]] wikilink, though. There's no [[Regent Street (London)]] entry. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] 22:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::: (scratch that - didn't check fully before replying) --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp]]:[[User_talk:VampWillow|Willow]] 00:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


== Rose Tyler vs. The Moment ==
Do we need to describe every episode? It's getting a bit wordy -- and quite "spoilery". Besides, if we describe everything Rose does in her travels with the Doctor, we'll be adding a new paragraph every week!


I believe this has already been discussed, but an editor is putting [[Rose Tyler]] as being a companion of the [[War Doctor]]. Since only [[The Moment]] appeared with the War Doctor, I believe it should be changed. Please discuss. --<span style="color: #666666;">‖ [[User:Ebyabe|<span style="color: #666666;">Ebyabe</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Ebyabe|<span style="color: #666666;">talk</span>]]</sup> - <small>[[Special:Contributions/Ebyabe|<span style="color: #666666;"><span style="cursor:help;">''Border Town''</span></span>]]</small></span> ‖ 19:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to concentrate on what makes Rose a unique companion. We're nearly there: No other companion has ever altered time for personal gain. But I still think that the description of "Father's Day" is too long and contains too many details.
:: There is no such character as "the Moment" - Piper is credited as Rose Tyler, and her appearance in "The Day of the Doctor" links directly back to Rose, hence why this article discusses Rose's role in the episode. Having said that, I agree that the character of Rose should not be listed as affiliated with the [[War Doctor]]; she appears essentially as a vision and there is no relationship between the tangible, "real" corporeal Rose and the version of the Doctor known as the [[War Doctor]]. [[User:Eshlare|Eshlare]] ([[User talk:Eshlare|talk]]) 13:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
(Note: I haven't simply changed it myself because I don't want to start an edit war... and because I'm not quite sure what should go in and what should be removed. I may propose something later in the week.) [[User:Ravenswood|Ravenswood]] 22:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:Updating the article as new aspects of the character emerge is part of the fun. Check articles based upon, for example, characters from ''Alias'' or ''Star Trek: Enterprise'' and you see that things are added on a regular basis. Every so often things need to be condensed a bit, but otherwise so long as a spoiler warning is present, I see no reason why we can't describe major aspects of her travels with the Doctor, and, yes, update every week if someone wants to do that. One of the major aspects of Wikipedia is it is never supposed to remain static. I agree that we could add more about what makes her unique, being careful to retain NPOV, of course. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 23:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Rose Tyler]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=713092331 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::Although as Ravenswood correctly points out, every episode is a bit excessive. Hopefully my edit down is not too much of a cull, as I tried to retain the focus on her and what she learns rather than her experiences. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] 00:26, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfx.co.uk/features/unwrapping_the_tenth_doctor
:::Certainly. The Trek bios don't go episode by episode, either. Although in Doctor Who's case we're only talking about a half dozen episodes so far, so it's difficult not to do a "play by play" in her case. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 02:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
==Accent==
Are those dulcet tones Piper's real voice, or is she putting on the [[Mockney]]? Very harsh on the ears, I found. [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 17:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:It's slightly exaggerated, but from the interviews I've seen, yes, it's her voice. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] 17:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Gordon Bennett. Stone the crows. Thanks for the info. [[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 17:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I rather like it. [[User:12.76.66.126|12.76.66.126]] 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
==Trivial information, Superphone==
Here's some info that really doesn't belong here. In fact, it may not belong anywhere.
*Rose is not the first companion to have a communications device supercharged by the Doctor. In "The Three Doctors", the Second Doctor juices the Brigadier's walkie-talkie so he can communicate with his men from inside the black hole.
*In "Scream of the Shalka", the alternate Ninth Doctor carries a cell phone which is "part of the TARDIS". [[User:Ravenswood|Ravenswood]] 23:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
:I've stuck it in a note under ''[[The End of the World (Doctor Who)|The End of the World]]''. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] 00:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
==Middle name==
I'm not disagreeing with the recent deletion of Rose's middle name as we should stick to on-screen canon for such things, but I'm trying to remember if the name is actually said in the "Father's Day" episode. Does anyone recall a middle name being mentioned in that episode? [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 22:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


== incorrect use of the term "incarnations" ==
:I do not remember any name other than "Rose" being applied to the baby. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 22:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
:: Yeah, I think you're right. If there was any logical time to mention her middle name, it would be then. The memory cheats! (Oh for the day when we lowly North Americans get the DVDs for the new series...) [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 03:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


The opening paragraph states "Rose was introduced as a new travelling companion of series protagonist, the Doctor, in his ninth and tenth incarnations.". This should be re-worded, because although she travelled with the ninth and tenth Doctor, they were, respectively, his tenth and eleventh incarnations. The War Doctor was one of his incarnations as well. [[User:Thecurryman2004|Thecurryman2004]] ([[User talk:Thecurryman2004|talk]]) 00:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the latest Doctor Who magazine and in the annual, I assumed this as proof. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Leonardo2505|Leonardo2505]] ([[User talk:Leonardo2505|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leonardo2505|contribs]]) 12:35, February 6, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>
:There was no War Doctor in 2005. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
So the Wikepedia page was accurate in 2005, perhaps not so accurate in retrospect...[[User:Thecurryman2004|Thecurryman2004]] ([[User talk:Thecurryman2004|talk]]) 07:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
:See [[WP:WAF|Writing About Fiction]]. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 12:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


==Dame Rose Tyler==
:The problem is that not everyone agrees on whether non-broadcast sources are [[canon (fiction)#Doctor Who|canonical]]. Personally, I think we should leave the middle name mention where it was (in "Other appearances"), rather than include it at the top of the article, but others may disagree. Let's talk it over. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Should the article mention that the character was knighted by Queen Victoria? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.77.195.190|219.77.195.190]] ([[User talk:219.77.195.190#top|talk]]) 13:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Phone number==
:It's already mentioned. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] ([[User talk:DonQuixote|talk]]) 13:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Per the Wikiproject main page (see the "Canon or not?" section), it is not correct to list Rose's speculated phone number as a fact, since it is mentioned in a novel which is located in a grey area of canon. Plus we don't know if, in the Doctor Who universe, phone numbers work the same way as they do in real life. Until Rose recites her phone number on TV, this can only be trivia and marked as potentially non-canon, so I moved it and marked it accordingly. 17:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC) [''[[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]]'' forgot to sign]
: Beg pardon, I must have dropped 3 <nowiki>~'s</nowiki> instead of 4. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Ah yes, sorry I missed that. I just searched for the title Dame. My bad <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.77.196.139|219.77.196.139]] ([[User talk:219.77.196.139#top|talk]]) 01:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I'm removing the canon note as it's already in the preceding section. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 22:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:I don't know anything about Ofcom numbers, but if we're going to mention the hypothetical Ofcom number based on the reference in ''The Monsters Inside'', I prefer the previous version that I've just restored to the slightly defensive one that preceded it. Opinions are welcome on whether it should be included in the article, and if so how much detail is needed. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] ([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]]) 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:: I still think it needs to be repeated both for this item and the trivia item preceding it that it's not considered canon in any event. Has anyone dialed the number to see if it's genuine? I agree with Josiah that the previous version was not only rather defensive, but it also was somewhat POV as well. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 18:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not genuine, that's the bloody point. It is set aside for use in TV programs in the UK, like a [[5-5-5]] number in the US.--[[User:TheDoctor10|TheDoctor10]] ([[User talk:TheDoctor10|talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/TheDoctor10|email]]) 07:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
:::If that's the case then there is really no point in even including this piece of trivia since we certainly don't do that for the hundreds of shows that use 555. So I've removed it. Please don't get defensive if someone takes issue with an edit. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
:I'd like to say that I think the note is unnecessary: It's a relatively obsure bit of trivia that's potentially non-canon. We're not the Discontinuity Guide (which already exists [http://www.whoniverse.org/discontinuity/], and it's quite good).--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">ck</font>]] 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I'll add my two cents: I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the note: I don't think that the article is harmed or helped by its inclusion. It's pretty trivial, even for trivia. However, I '''will''' say that I'm pretty tired of this edit warring, '''both''' on the part of [[User:TheDoctor10|TheDoctor10]] '''and''' those who are responding to him. The issue should have been brought back here before we got anywhere near 3RR. C'mon, people: consensus! —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] ([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]]) 22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
::I ultimately feel the same way - but I'm even more disappointed with TheDoctor10 for this because he '''knows''' this is not the way to go, as he's already been blocked for edit warring before. I honestly thought he was getting better, but he's reverting to his earlier behaviour. Be that as it may, I'm wondering if there's a way to include this information that will satisfy both sides: the 020746 number is trivial, and the fact that it's in the NDA even more so and should be removed, but it might be notable that the same number crops up both in ''Rose'' and ''Aliens of London''. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 22:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:::If the full number was visible in those two episodes, then it can at least be considered canon, but it's still a piece of information that's simply too trivial for trivia unless it actually is used as a plot device of some sort. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 06:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
::::As I stated in the style guide when I first drew it up, canonicity isn't the criterion: notability is. It's simply that we cite our sources and note the dodgy areas where people may not treat that information as canon. The fact that the number in ''Monsters Inside'' is non-canonical is a red herring as different people have different definitions of canon; the question to be determined by consensus is whether or not such a fact is notable. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:Couldn't agree more. He's really pushing this thing (the whole "I'm right and I'm going to keep adding it back, no matter what" thing, that is), though.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">ck</font>]] 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
::That's certainly true. But I'd like to hope that we could convince him to stop the edit warring instead of just giving him the smackdown. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] ([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]]) 05:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:::As do I, and I sincerely hope that I have not been doing that. If I have, then I apologize profusely to everyone involved.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Similarly it's not my intent to give a "smackdown" either on this, which is why I pointed out the 3RR danger rather than do a block for violating it. It's really too minor a point. But I do think some sort of consensus needs to be reached -- if not here then on the Wikiproject page -- regarding where to draw the line. It's the same as including in a trivia note that [[Peri Brown]] has blue eyes. It really adds nothing to the "knowledge base" regarding the character or the franchise. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 05:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
::::That's reasonable. I don't want to be seen as advocating special treatment for TD10, but he's shown himself to be... shall we say sensitive? protective? about his contributions — some of which are valuable. In this case, two editors had expressed the opinion that the note should be removed, one had promoted it, and two (Khaosworks and myself) had not stated a clear opinion, but had arguably shown some tacit approval by polishing the edit. That wasn't a consensus yet, and so I think that the note was removed just a bit prematurely — a bit of patience ''might'' have prevented this latest skirmish. (I still have no strong opinion one way or the other about the note itself — and it does look ''now'' as if a majority of editors think it's non-notable, which judgment I respect. I'm just saying that it pays to be considerate, even of those who have been difficult to work with in the past.) —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] ([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]]) 06:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::I agree. And I'd like to apologize again, both to TD10 and the entire Wikiproject, if my behaviour has been in any way disruptive.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 06:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your apologies, but I still think that it ought to be included. I can, if you like, get several people to email you to shaw that they approve of the edit.--[[User:TheDoctor10|TheDoctor10]] ([[User talk:TheDoctor10|talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/TheDoctor10|email]]) 08:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:[[Astroturfing]] or [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet|sockpuppetry]] (or meat puppetry if you prefer) won't convince anybody. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 09:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you just confirm that you are accusing me of dishonesty, Khaosworks? I never said I'd sockpuppet, I said I would get genuine human beings (different people) to email you. If you ''are'' accusing me of lying, I shall make a formal complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation.--[[User:TheDoctor10|TheDoctor10]] ([[User talk:TheDoctor10|talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/TheDoctor10|email]]) 13:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, go and read the definitions. I'm saying that getting a bunch of people to mail Sean about how your addition is true and good isn't going to amount anything. Convince establishbed editors on Wikipedia, then we'll talk. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 14:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Going to look at the definitons has nothing to do w/ it. I said that I would find as many people as you want who will form a consensus '''for''' the 'phone number being included, and you accused me of planning to pretend to be that many people. If you can't accept that you accused me of dishonesty, then just sod off.--[[User:TheDoctor10|TheDoctor10]] ([[User talk:TheDoctor10|talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/TheDoctor10|email]]) 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
::If you don't have the ability or the will to comprehend that I did not accuse you of dishonesty, then I can't help you. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 22:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:<small>Also, finally, does it matter that much? Will it affect you adverseley to have a piece of info in the article that you don't like? I've put it back.</small>--[[User:TheDoctor10|TheDoctor10]] ([[User talk:TheDoctor10|talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/TheDoctor10|email]]) 17:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
::Just because it's personal for you, don't assume that it's personal for other editors. It shouldn't be personal for ''any'' of us — it should be about the quality of the article. We all use our judgment about what's notable and what isn't, and the majority rules. That's how Wikipedia works. If you want to bring your friends in to join in the project, and they make worthwhile contributions — just as you have, on several occasions! — then their opinions can be considered as well, just as yours is. But bringing non-contributors in solely for the purpose of altering a consensus is called [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet#"Meatpuppets|meat puppetry]], and the Arbitration Committee has ruled against it. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] ([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]]) 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on [[Rose Tyler]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/817129442|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I've noticed that TheDoctor10 has reverted the edit again -- and has once again violated 3RR. Since I am involved to an extent in this argument I will not do a block for this, however the editor in question does run the risk of being blocked by a neutral party if this is noticed. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126012218/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/11/23/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-the-day-of-the-doctor/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/11/23/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-the-day-of-the-doctor/
:I'll let it go (because he '''knows''' that it's against the rules), but if someone wishes, they can report it at [[WP:AN/3RR]].--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]]<font color="green">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</font> 22:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I'm thinking of starting an article just about this section of this talk page. Do you people realize that you generated over a full page of discussion on whether the alleged pretend phone number of a character on a TV show should be included in an article? I especially like the way some people felt that it was such an important cause, that they risked being banned to try to include it in the article. Thanks for the self esteem boost, guys. ;) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User: Penismightierthanthesword| Penismightierthanthesword]] ([[User talk: Penismightierthanthesword|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ Penismightierthanthesword|contribs]]) 13:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned2] -->
: Please sign your comments otherwise it's hard to take them seriously. In any event, the actual discussion of the phone number is minor as it became more a discussion of user behavior (and if you do a little research you'll see it has moved into another forum). [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:: 23skidoo's right, the conversation was really about the user's behaviour — but penismightierthanthesword is right, too. It's pretty ridiculous that we all had to spend this much time on such an incredibly trivial point. It's always good to get some perspective. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] ([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]]) 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
== "Oh my God, I'm a chav!" ==


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 09:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
While I certainly appreciate that we want to avoid episode-by-episode summaries here, I wonder if there's a way to incorporate Cassandra's takeover of Rose's body briefly in the article. The main arguments for doing this are that in ''[[New Earth]]'' Davies used Cassandra to comment on some of the public reactions to the character of Rose, specifically some critics' perception of her as low-class and the considerable appreciation of Ms. Piper's physical charms from some members of the public. While I don't think we need to include all of Cassandra's barbs ("nice rear bumper!"), it might be good to show how the programme is humorously alluding to audience and critical reaction. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 23:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
== "Rose Tyler (Doctor Who Charecter)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
:Then the significance — and focus — should be not that Cassandra took over Rose's body, but that Davies wanted to use it to comment on the public reaction to Rose's character. In which case it (a) needs to be properly cited that Davies intended it as such and (b) probably better suited for a note in ''[[New Earth]]''. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]]
::Fair enough — although I don't think a) is achievable. It may be OR-ish, but it seems obvious to me that the reason "Oh my God, I'm a chav!" is funny is the class difference between Rose and Cassandra. We already address Rose's class status in the article (with the reference to the council estate), but I thought it might be noteworthy to see how the programme itself has dealt with the matter. Oh, well — perhaps there isn't a suitable way. It'll be interesting to see how Rose interacts with royalty in ''[[Tooth and Claw]]'', though... :^) —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 02:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[Rose Tyler (Doctor Who Charecter)]]. Please participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 5#Rose Tyler (Doctor Who Charecter)|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:1234qwer1234qwer4|1234qwer1234qwer4]] ([[User talk:1234qwer1234qwer4|talk]]) 13:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
:::It's funny to me because in [[The End of the World (Doctor Who)|The End of the World]] Cassandra was quite obviously a pretentious jerk (with our present information, even in five billion years, only a pompous windbag could mistake an [[iPod]] for some [[jukebox]], or vice versa. Same with the [[ostrich]]). Clearly Cassandra is an insecure [[poser]], which, given the equivocation (at least where I'm from) of chavs with posers, makes her a sort of a chav to begin with! For this reason, I also think the chav thing does much better in Cassandra's entry. [[User:12.76.66.126|12.76.66.126]] 20:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


== Irrelevance ==
== Shay Generouso ==


Shay Generouso is a. Relatively New Harry Potter. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.44.36.223|80.44.36.223]] ([[User talk:80.44.36.223#top|talk]]) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Thanks to whomever deleted my tangent about suppressed desires. That isn't technically her personality (it's her id) and if we were to do a whole section on Suppressed Desires Rose Tyler May Possibly Entertain, it is bound to turn out interesting but not very relevant. A List of Fictional Characters With Freudian Tendencies would be far too long.[[User:12.76.67.243|12.76.67.243]] 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

==Fan reaction==

Is this worth mentioning? Whilst most fans were keen on Rose in season 1, there seems to be a growing movement of fans who have now changed opinions over the course of season 2. The chief criticisms tend to be the characters habit for always starting off situations with an attitude that seems ignorant (laughing, cracking jokes, etc) and the fact she's become extremely possesive of the Doctor. I think there's enough fans feeling this way to mention a rise and decline in her popularity --[[User:HellCat86|HellCat86]] 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:The difficulty is [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:OR|original research]]. Where exactly are these criticisms arising? How widespread are they? How noticeable are they? Have they been reported in the fan or mainstream press? If so, where? "Enough fans" is horribly subjective, unless you can point somewhere where this is actually said. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 02:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
*Very fair points. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting a section that talks about hatred of the character but one that mentions she was generally popular in the first season but her popularity is declining now for specific reasons. Other articles on Wikipedia covering fictional things have done similar. If it's felt this is inapropriate, I'll completly understand --[[User:HellCat86|HellCat86]] 14:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
:Understood, but I still think that this stuff needs to be verifiable, other articles notwithstanding (if they do this, I don't think they are following policy, other). So I would still say that it's not appropriate unless a source can be cited. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== Should we add episode by episode summaries? ==

I am asking what is in the topic title for a reason. That is that there are summaries until Tooth and Claw, where it stops. Also, there is a speculation bit in the last few paragraphs that can be got rid of when Season 2 finishes, as all will be revealed. I actually now what happened, but will not divulge it unless requested. :)

[[User:SSJ Undertaker|SSJ Undertaker]] 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

:No. The purpose of the history section is not to detail every episode and every event, but significant things that happen to her. ''Tooth and Claw'' is mentioned because of the knighthood, not because it's just an episode. After that, the next major development is the finale. So all is well. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's alright then, I was just wondering what you were doing by way of history.
[[User:SSJ Undertaker|SSJ Undertaker]] 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


There seems to be alot of detail regarding the first episode. Is this necceserry? [[User:JameiLei|JameiLei]] 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:I'd say yes - the episode is about her; it's there that most of her character is set up. [[User:Percy Snoodle|Percy Snoodle]] 11:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== Damaged Goods ==

Of course the Tylers aren't related to Damaged Goods people. Please agree. (By the way, I didn't mean to un-enter the Life on Mars bit). --<font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font><sup><font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font></sup> 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Too tired.

:I agree that there's no evidence to suggest a relationship (aside from the rather tenuous detail that both Tyler families live in London council estates), and the text shouldn't suggest that there is. Some people (unfamiliar with ''Damaged Goods'') might have read "the Tyler family" as a reference to relatives of Rose, so I've changed that to "a family named Tyler". With that emendation, there's no need to specify anything more about the relationship or lack thereof. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


== Coming back? ==

Did not know where else to ask this, but is there any chance she might appear in another episode? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.22.69.162|70.22.69.162]] ([[User talk:70.22.69.162|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.22.69.162|contribs]]) 20:29, February 9, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>
:As far as we know, there are no plans for Rose to return, but in a recent interview ([http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/articles/2007/02/06/billie_piper_treats_interview_feature.shtml here]) Billie Piper said, "There's always the chance that Rose may return. You never know - that's the beauty of sci-fi!" I wouldn't expect it this year, but they might try bringing her back as a plot twist in a few years, or for some anniversary special. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 06:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Dalek356|Dalek356]]: I have noticed somthing, in the new series 3 (Exept from episode 1, as like every other series), the name [[Rose Tyler|Rose]] has been mentioned, there is also a mention of "He is not alone", by The Face Of Bo, that is followed by the confidential episode, where at the end Tennent says "He is right, and he is wrong", might that mean that he is right i.e. The Master and he is wrong, Rose. Also the Doctor never gives up hope and keeps himself "pure", and not exepting Marther. On top of all this the Daleks use "emergancy temporal shift", meaning they travel beetween dimentions. This must mean they open a small rip between worlds, as mentioned in [[Army of Ghosts]], meaning there might be a portal between the universes, and as Rose now works at Torchwood, the best place in the univerese for alien tech. that might mean that she goes through and joins the Doctor. Want more proof, well it is also said that the last two episodes of series 3 [[The Sound of Drums]] and [[The Last of the Time Lords]] is set in the present year, as was [[Doomsday (Doctor Who)]], as Rose is in on parrallel earth. Does this mean she is back in series 3? That will be answered soon...

==Rose's age==
I've removed an excellent piece on Rose's age. This belongs somewhere, but on Wikipedia it's [[Wikipedia:original research|original research]] and we don't do that here. I would suggest that the piece could be transferred from the article history by anybody (not just the original author(s)) to the TARDIS website at [[wikia:tardis:Rose Tyler]]. It's quite okay to copy stuff to that site as long as you say it's from Wikipedia. They have exactly the same GFDL free license as ours and it permits free copying and modification. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 02:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

: You're such a fascist crusader. Get a clue, everything in this section was not unsourced and was not speculation, the farking episodes contained all the information and were sourced clearly. What's next, deleting the [[UNIT dating controversy]], which is long and worked on by hundreds, and linked to from dozens of articles? Keep it up, this unilateral action that effects many users will get you slapped with a third request for comment, and you'll go down like Kelly Martin in the userbox firestorm. -- [[User:AvatarMN|AvatarMN]] 09:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but under Goodwin's law you lose. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.149.142.215|78.149.142.215]] ([[User talk:78.149.142.215|talk]]) 10:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Appearances==

That big long list is really ugly. Couldn't you just put Season 1 and Season 2, or issues 1 - 13, instead of listing every single episode. [[User:Paul730|Paul730]] 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

:We could, if people agree with your assessment that it's ugly and unnecessary. Personally, I think that a complete list of appearances adds encyclopedic value, but if there's a conensus against such lists I won't oppose it. On the other hand, if there's no consensus against it, I'd like to remove the tags on that section. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Paul: there is no need for every title to be listed; series numbers should be sufficient, and encyclopaediac enough. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:::How does it look now? I've condensed the list of television appearances into prose, but the lists of novels and comics appearances remains. I'd like to keep that, as it's content not found in any other article. What do others think? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, prose works well, I think. I've linked to the [[List of Doctor Who serials]] page, so interested readers can access the individual stories. The other lists are long, but as you say, they're not listed elsewhere specifically, although they are present on [[Ninth Doctor]] and [[Tenth Doctor]] pages, again quite clumsily. Why don't we have a non-tv appearance list similar to the TV serials page, where we can list all this centrally and then we can remove the clumsy lists from the character pages and just link in a similar way as you've done with the TV stuff. Keeps it all together, and provides a better format for discussing them from an out-of-universe perspective. I know there's pages for New Series Adventures and whathaveyou, but as you say, there's no real source to see it all together. Just a thought. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 04:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm not sure how well that would work for some of the appearances, such as for example the novels. For the [[New Series Adventures]], the books are released in sets which follow the continuity of the TV series, but other book lines were more haphazard. Consider [[Sarah Jane Smith]]: she's appeared in a bunch of novels which were published over more than a decade, with lots and lots of novels not featuring her interspersed. Several of them are set after her time with the Doctor, so a link to a page like [[Doctor Who story chronology]] wouldn't work either. I don't see how a non-TV appearance list could be applied in a case like that. Similarly, the comics don't necessarily feature the characters in neat sequential packages. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 04:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes, the more I think about it, the more problematic it seems...oh well. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] 04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

==Redundant sections==
Having a character history and an appearances section is redundant. Wikipedia articles are not a plot resource for reading about the character's fictional life. The two should be merged. See [[Jack Harkness]] for a good example of how a ''Doctor Who'' character article should be written, or [[Jason Voorhees]], [[Padmé Amidala]], and [[Jack Sparrow]] for fictional characters in general. Rose appears in several media, so her appearances should be split into "Television" and "Literature". Canon is irrelevant; she still appeared in novels no matter whether it's "real" within the Whoniverse. The same goes for all fictional character articles, not just this one. [[User:Paul730|Paul730]] 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

==References==

Why do most of the references end with '''Event occurs at Noon. “Fred”'''? [[User:Million Moments|Million_Moments]] 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:Because somebody messed with the "cite episode" template. I'll go fix it. --[[User:Brian Olsen|Brian Olsen]] 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, I knew it wasn't right, I just didn't know how to fix it! [[User:Million Moments|Million_Moments]] 07:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


==Continuing Companions==

A reference was made to Rose being the only companion who wanted to stay with the Doctor, the others being unwilling travellers.

Is this actually true ?? I was always under the impression that Jamie McCrimmon would have been a longterm Companion, but was sent back to his own time/place at the end of one of the episodes [War Games ??].

[[User:193.243.227.1|193.243.227.1]] 16:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

:Well, no other companion explicitly said that they wanted to stay with the Doctor ''forever''. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Rose was the ''only'' companion who wanted to stay with the Doctor indefinitely — at any rate, several other companions hoped to travel with the Doctor for longer than they ended up doing. Susan certainly wasn't prepared to part company with her grandfather, and Sarah Jane also wasn't ready to end her TARDIS travels when the Doctor got the summons to Gallifrey. The article currently says that ''many'' of the Doctor's previous companions were unwilling travelers, which is more or less accurate. That said, the classic series didn't examine the relationship between the Doctor and his companion(s) in the same way that the new series did, so an examination of how long, say, Jamie would have stayed with the Doctor had the Time Lords not intervened would be [[WP:NOR|original research]], and thus beyond our purview. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

== Rose's return ==

There is a line in this stating that "Piper is now widely rumoured to be returning for a three-parter of Doctor Who at the end of Series 4." - though this is references, is'nt this specullation. The source itself notes that it is based on rumor.<br>
"Rumors are circulating through the media of a forthcoming Doctor Who movie. Billie Piper, rumored to be set to return as Rose for series four, is now being cited as starring alongside current Doctor David Tennant in the film. "It's all been hushed up ... but yes, it's definitely happening," a source reportedly told the Daily Star. "David and Billie were a superb combination on the small screen, so it seems only right that they appear in the film."<br>
Should we really have this in? [[User: StuartDD|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Stuart</span>]][[User talk: StuartDD|<span style="background:red;color:white">DD</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/StuartDD|contributions]]</sub> 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:I've removed it, until someone can explain why speculation belongs on wikipedia. [[User: StuartDD|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Stuart</span>]][[User talk: StuartDD|<span style="background:red;color:white">DD</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/StuartDD|contributions]]</sub> 09:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Although it has been confirmed, and despite the "Spoilers are welcome everywhere" attitude WIkipedia has adopted, which is unacceptable (but that's a matter for another forum), I feel having such a major spoiler in the lead is simply unfair to readers. I have moved it farther down. I don't feel it adds anything to the lead because the lead states that she travelled with the Ninth and Tenth Doctors and there's no indication that she'll be travelling with another Doctor in her upcoming appearances. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] ([[User talk:23skidoo|talk]]) 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
:Good point - I think that's a good idea. [[User: StuartDD|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Stuart</span>]][[User talk: StuartDD|<span style="background:red;color:white">DD</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/StuartDD|contributions]]</sub> 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

===Where to put it===
Currently the return info is in two places. Where should we put it? [[User: StuartDD|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Stuart</span>]][[User talk: StuartDD|<span style="background:red;color:white">DD</span>]] <sub>[[Special:Contributions/StuartDD|contributions]]</sub> 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:05, 18 February 2024

Good articleRose Tyler 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 23, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Julie Gardner quote

[edit]

Julie Gardner said on the commentary for the episode that she will "confirm to the world" that he was going to "say it back."

Don't really know why the above sentence was cut from the end of the third paragraph of the Personality section. I'm sure I remember Julie saying something pretty much like it at the time, and the Doomsday article cites her for just that, sourced to the Beeb's Commentary for "Doomsday". Personally I'd put it back in, but my software won't access the BBC download site so I can't check and make absolutely sure. If anybody wants to pick this one up, please be my guest. Gnostrat (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physical appearance in last on-screen scene

[edit]

Is it significant to note the physical discrepancy between Rose's normal appearance in seasons 1-4 and her slightly-different look in The End of Time Part 2? Her eyebrows are different, and her face appears distinctly thinner. I found the discrepancy to be a bit jarring, yet I haven't seen commentary for it anywhere. I'd assume it has something to do with Piper's non-Doctor Who obligations or perhaps the amount of time to apply makeup or something versus the time available for the shot. Anyone know of a source discussing this? Macoukji (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Moffett

[edit]

I've taken the refence to GM auditioning for the role out just now. I'm sure this is correct, but the source isn't reliable. In the contact section of the website linked to it states: "Please note that we are not endorsed by, or have any link to, Ms Moffett" and the biography only states that she "reportedly auditioned". It's useful information, so I'll have a look round to see if I can find another source. Eshlare (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rose Tyler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 11:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • No problems with imaging.
  • No concerns about the reliability of sources.
  • No dab links.
  • One dead link.
  • Updated to the 2008 version of the BBC website
  • All BBC News/Newsround refs should be formatted like how Ref 99 is, per consistency.
  • Fixed.
  • The em dash has been used incorrectly throughout the article. Per WP:DASH, do not use spaced em dashes, use it unspaced however: Another "planet" was detected—but it was later found to be a moon of Saturn.
  • Have added 'citation needed' tags for questionable quotes/statements.
  • replaced with references.
  • For Ref 84, Organgrider is not the work, and nor is The Guardian, it's guardian.co.uk.
  • Changed.
  • Ref 94 was also published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian, which refers to the newspaper.
  • Changed.
  • Ref 50's author is Sally Kinnes, not Russell T Davies.
  • Fixed.

Appearances

  • "Here, she is saved" ? Perhaps "There, she is saved"?
  • Replace comma in "Rose learns the importance of not tampering with history, when she attempts..." with em or en dash depending on your preference.
  • "...come to understand the meaning of this phrase when they come face to face with an unstoppable...", come is a tad repetitive here, perhaps you could rephrase it.
  • "and becomes suffused" ? "becoming suffused"
  • "to lead herself to this moment" ? "leading herself to the moment"
  • "After defeating a werewolf they are" comma between 'warewolf' and 'they'.
  • "...whilst setting up the Torchwood Institute which aims...", place comma between 'Institute' and 'which'
  • alternate-universe should not be hypenated
  • Fixed all of these.

Development

  • "Following "Doomsday" Piper...", comma before Piper
  • "In the first series finale Rose" comma before Rose
  • rewatched does not need to be hypenated
  • should it be humanise per British spelling?
  • Fixed all of these concerns.

Reception

  • "She was listed as the second-best female companion behind Sarah Jane Smith by The Daily Telegraph's Gavin Fuller, and the second-best companion behind Sarah Jane by Daniel Martin of The Guardian in 2007" could be easily changed to → "She was listed as the second-best female companion behind Sarah Jane Smith by The Daily Telegraph's Gavin Fuller and Daniel Martin of The Guardian in 2007", to get straight to the point.
    redacted the sentence a bit.

Otherwise, a neat article (haven't watched Doctor Who in a while but never missed an episode during the Eccleston and Tennant era) and would be happy to pass provided changes are made. On hold for seven days. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I've taken care of everything raised. Thank you very much for the constructive review. Let me know if there's anything outstanding or that can still be improved.Eshlare (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Name.

[edit]

Where is it? I thought it used to be included in the article. Did the same person that disliked Buffy's middle name being included come here and remove Rose's middle name? Hmm. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the article a couple of years ago. The crux of it is she isn't a real person, so a "birth name" doesn't come into consideration. Her middle name isn't part of how the character is popularly known - in fact it isn't used in a single television episode - and therefore does not deserve a place in the lede or infobox, or plot summary/development/reception sections.
The information that her creator Russell T Davies envisaged the character to have a certain middle name according to a companion guide to the series is still present within the article. Seen Rose_Tyler#Literature.Eshlare (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Tyler vs. The Moment

[edit]

I believe this has already been discussed, but an editor is putting Rose Tyler as being a companion of the War Doctor. Since only The Moment appeared with the War Doctor, I believe it should be changed. Please discuss. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 19:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such character as "the Moment" - Piper is credited as Rose Tyler, and her appearance in "The Day of the Doctor" links directly back to Rose, hence why this article discusses Rose's role in the episode. Having said that, I agree that the character of Rose should not be listed as affiliated with the War Doctor; she appears essentially as a vision and there is no relationship between the tangible, "real" corporeal Rose and the version of the Doctor known as the War Doctor. Eshlare (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rose Tyler. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect use of the term "incarnations"

[edit]

The opening paragraph states "Rose was introduced as a new travelling companion of series protagonist, the Doctor, in his ninth and tenth incarnations.". This should be re-worded, because although she travelled with the ninth and tenth Doctor, they were, respectively, his tenth and eleventh incarnations. The War Doctor was one of his incarnations as well. Thecurryman2004 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no War Doctor in 2005. DonQuixote (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the Wikepedia page was accurate in 2005, perhaps not so accurate in retrospect...Thecurryman2004 (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Writing About Fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Rose Tyler

[edit]

Should the article mention that the character was knighted by Queen Victoria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.195.190 (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned. DonQuixote (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sorry I missed that. I just searched for the title Dame. My bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.196.139 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rose Tyler. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rose Tyler (Doctor Who Charecter)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rose Tyler (Doctor Who Charecter). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Generouso

[edit]

Shay Generouso is a. Relatively New Harry Potter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.36.223 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rose_Tyler&oldid=1208600122"