Jump to content

Talk:The Vampires of Venice

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.125.175.213 (talk) at 07:39, 19 May 2010 (→Another break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDoctor Who Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Toby Whithouse

Credit him as the creator of Being Human as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs) 13:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Looks like the preposition may be different, apparently Radio Times titles this as 'Vampires of Venice'. I've made a redirect from that, at tleast. Radagast (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to the Gallifrey Base news page, both the BBC preview discs and Toby Whithouse have named the episode as 'Vampires of Venice'. 86.166.212.201 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rory = companion ?

Well I know we shouldn't do OR, but we know the episode is in the past, and Rory is in it. So we can assume he travels in the TARDIS for that one. Hektor (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well can we? Perhaps he travels in time by another means (Capt. Jack's bracelet, somethink like the Weeping Angels, make one up), and the Doctor and Amy go and rescue him. However, we warned that companion status can be very contrivesial, and a reliable source saying that xyz is a companion in an episode is normally needed. Edgepedia (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, there won't be anything we can do until the BBC Press Office is updated in two weeks time for Week 19. But, we know that Rory does travel with the Doctor and Amy in the TARDIS in Vampires of Venice as a wedding present, according to the script. Also, he's apparently a companion until Episode 9, which makes sense given that clip in the recent trailer with him and two other people beside him which seems a bit more like "We're drilling into Earth and have been confronted by reptilians/Silurians/whatever", than any other episode... Ramble over. 81.154.8.174 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC Press Office release is clear : "the Doctor takes Amy and Rory for a romantic mini-break, as the Tardis touches down once again.
But 17th-century Venice is not as it should be."
I think that seals it. Hektor (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people have travelled in the TARDIS, they're not all companions. Jackie in Army of Ghosts, the two younger crew members in Waters of Mars, you get the idea. It would appear that Rory does not travel with the Doctor between this episode and Amy's Choice (and it doesn't seem that Amy does either for that matter), and so without official sources there is nothing to say he can be considered a companion here until the episode has broadcast. If he does indeed travel with Doc/Amy until episode 9 than this will probably be considered the start of his companion run, but there's no rush to pre-empt things we don't know for sure. U-Mos (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rory Williams travels in the TARDIS, he is a character according to DWM 421 at least in episodes 6, 7, 8 and 9. He is in the TARDIS at least in episodes 6 and 7 according to the summaries of BBC and DWM 421. The characters you mention in your counter examples are travelling only once. 86.196.44.34 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The role of companion is vague, just look at the Companion (Doctor Who) article. Is Adelaide Brooke a companion in "The Waters of Mars"? What about Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart? Trying to define what a companion is, and then fitting someone into that category is uncertain and nearly always orginial research. Therefore, in these cases we need a reliable source saying some is a companion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edgepedia is correct. There is no hard-and-fast rule about what makes a character a companion. We have to rely on what reliable sources say — in this case, we should wait until we have an RS calling him a companion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC Press Office release is clear, again : "It's 2015 (...) the Doctor, Amy and Rory arrive in a tiny mining village and find themselves plunged into a battle against a deadly danger from a bygone age." Travels in the TARDIS, to his relative past, 1580, then to the future, 2015. Appears in four consecutive episodes, 6 to 9.
At the end of the episode, Amy asks Rory to stay and travel with them. The episode itself is the source. If the episode itself cannot be the source, why do you keep the plots in the individual episode articles ? they are all entirely lacking reliable sources if you don't accept the episode as a source. Hektor (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclinded to agree with this. Although if we're desperate for sources, I'd probably just wait until the inevitable series 5 guidebook is released - I'd be seriously surprised if that didn't describe him as a companion. - Goldenboy (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rory is a companion? Random section-break

< I don't recall the word "companion" being used in the episode. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 08:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the episodes themselves can't be used in this situation because doing so would be interpretive. DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you have a totally unsourced episode summary ? Any sentence in it is interpretive. I take any innocent sentence at random. For instance : ... the Doctor sneaks into the school, where he is ambushed by five beautiful girls. What is your source to say they are beautiful ? By which standards ? Isn't it OR ? How do we know it is an ambush ? Do we have a source to say it is in a school ? or that they are really five ? Hektor (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WP:COMMONSENSE applies. We can count five girls, the Doctor describes them as beautiful, and the institution is clearly established as a school. Are you claiming that there were not five of them, for instance? There is no way of uncontroversially defining "companion" in the same way that we can define "five" – ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Companion = travels in time and space, on board the TARDIS, with the Doctor, for two or more consecutive episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs)
Interesting—because according to the BBC, Adelaide was a companion, and she doesn't meet your exacting criterion. So you are wrong, and the judgement is not as easy as you think. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Necessary and sufficient condition. My criterion is sufficient. Not necessary. Hektor (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your "criterion" isn't even sufficient. See Fallacy of the undistributed middle. DonQuixote (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< OK, I'm bored and profoundly uninterested in all that logic crap. This is not a debating forum. If you cannot provide a reliable source which explicitly states that Rory is a companion, then he will not be listed as a companion in the article. Five editors, one of whom is an admin, agree that this is the correct policy position, so you will simply have to cope with that. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 15:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so it's WP:OWN after all. Thanks and have fun with your Tag team. Hektor (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiight—you're absolutely sure it's not WP:CON instead of WP:OWN? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions has him as companion for these four episodes, and he's in Category:Doctor Who companions. Either those should be reversed, or whatever reasoning led to those choices should apply here and he should be included as a companion. Radagast (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - scotch that! I have a reliable external source, the site A Brief History of Time (Travel). See here. Radagast (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the world's least reliable sources, actually. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The doesn't look reliable. magnius (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my original argument stands for this increasingly silly dispute. I now wash my hands of it. Radagast (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As was mentioned in another thread (series vs seasons), Wikipedia articles can't start something (calling something a "season" or calling someone a "companion"), we can only reflect what reliable sources are doing. DonQuixote (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article Mickey Smith. It is said that he is a companion. he briefly joins the TARDIS crew as the Tenth Doctor's second companion in the 2006 series There is no source provided. So what is the difference ? Hektor (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear! I'll just go and add this source now. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 07:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have these sources:

  • "DOCTOR WHO TO HAVE TWO NEW ASSISTANTS". Daily Star. 3 Feburary 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • It's the Daily Star(?), and it describes them as assistants
  • "DOCTOR WHO: The Tardis Will Be Getting Crowded – Add Three New Companions And … A Drunk Giraffe". scifimafia.com. 9 Feburary 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Source is the Daily Star and DigitalSpy, and it's a blog
  • "Three New Companions For Doctor Who". Sky TV. 3 Feburary 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • "Luckily, we've got the scoop", i.e they're quoting a rumour, source is the Daily Star.
  • Dan Martin (8 May 2010). "Doctor Who: The Vampires Of Venice - series 31, episode six". {{cite news}}: Text "guardian.co.uk blog" ignored (help)
    • "the introduction of Rory as a Tardis regular"
  • "Doctor Who: Meet Amy's bloke Rory". whatsontv.co.uk. 7 May 2010.
    • How does it feel to be a fully signed-up companion now?

"Great! Not many men get to travel with the Doctor so I feel very proud. Steven Moffat has written a great story for Rory."

So we have rumours before transmission (probably the weakest), and descriptions of Rory as an assistant, TARDIS regular. The last one is a leading question ... any of them reliable? Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never see the Daily Star as reliable, Digital Spy really depends on where they are getting their story. Up until now we seem to have used the idea that the actors name must appear in the opening credits...go against this and we have to review a lot of people such as The Brigadier who BBC themselves list as a companion, but still seems to be a figure of debate on wiki. magnius (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last one looks reliable to me. It's about time we sorted this one way or another at any rate. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) As far as I'm concerned, it is sorted out, at least until the consensus changes. (2) I don't consider the last one of those reliable; it's one tabloid journalist's take on what companion status is. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 14:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Reading both this discussion and the one at WT:WikiProject Doctor Who#Rory a companion?, there seem to be a lot of diverse views regarding everything from reliability of sources to the definition of a companion. I don't really see a consensus on either issue. You are correct that it shouldn't be changed until consensus is firmly on one side, but that's very different from the issues already being sorted out, which they don't appear to be. (2) The last source isn't just what a tabloid journalist thinks, but appears to be endorsed by the actor! Alzarian16 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it says, I read it, that's how I was able to comment. The term "companion" is only introduced based on the journalist's assumption that Rory is a companion. True, the actor doesn't leap to correct the interviewer, but that alone is not sufficient basis for anything. Suppose someone had said to Matt Smith, "So, what's it like being the King of Upper Boat?" – that wouldn't mean anything, even if Smith didn't literally deny it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upper Boat doesn't have a king, it has a Top Dog ;-)
Surely WP:DEADLINE applies here? There shouldn't need to be any rush to label Rory as a companion; we can do so once there's consensus that a reliable source has been found. (I'm personally convinced Rory's a companion, but I'm not reliable). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Rory is considering that he has done far more than say 'Jackie Tyler' who is listed as a companion, as in he travels with the Doctor last weekend and assume again this week although it's far too weird, and the 2 parter, so that is a month of travling. So by the definitions written on here, traveled yes, more than one episode yes, far less tedious than some of the other claims for companions seen. There's a couple of these discussions so you'll have to look. A couple of sources say yes and 1 mentions 3 and assumes Rory is with out confirmation. But to be fair the 'reliable source' arguement is rubbish, as it is only the tabloid backends who mention it. The BBC and broadsheets are hardly going to mention them as a companion unless it is headlined as a new companion for the whole sereis and a big name. Rory was mentioned as being Amy's other half and that was about it. So since the press already mentioned him, why would they run a seperate story stating the upgrade? KnowIG 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)
Well, you would say it, and I would say it, but what you and I say have no authority (unless what you or I say gets published in a reliable source). Anyway, there is no "definition" as such written on here but rather a "description". And "reliable sources" is Wikipedia's policy, so it's not "rubbish" insofar as it's required of us, and if we don't do it then someone will come around and start deleting things. DonQuixote (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< I'm tempted to close this thread, because it's just repeating itself over and over. If anybody misunderstands or disagrees with the next sentence, please briefly explain why, and I'll try to help. Wikipedia's content policy requires that a reliable source is listed to verify every single assertion contained in an article, and people's individual opinions on what constitutes companion status are not reliable sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is a case of WP:IGNORE. By it's definition stated on this very wiki a companion is someone who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor. Furthermore, the term "companion" derived from the fandom therefore, it IS people's individual opinions on what constitutes companion status... that constitutes companion status. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I'm not seeing how describing Rory as a "companion" before a reliable source is found constitutes improving or maintaining Wikipedia? TFOWRpropaganda 00:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's generally accepted by the fandom (who dictates what a companion is) that Rory is a companion and to not state such is preventing the maintenance and improvement of the wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The only thing that says Rory isn't a companion is the rules which can and are encouraged to be ignored. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ignored for the purposes of improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Again, it isn't clear how describing as Rory as "a companion" improves or maintains the article. Is there some reason that what you believe "fandom" generally accepts should trump finding a reliable source? TFOWRpropaganda 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear... on an article about the companions of Doctor Who... how including a companion of Doctor Who who should be listed but is not is improving or maintaining Wikipedia? I don't understand how else I can clarify that... Also, "fandom" trumps a reliable source because fandom is general knowledge. Furthermore, companion is a fandom (read: non-canon) description, therefore what co-star can be described as a companion is decided by the fandom. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about the companions of the Doctor, it's about an episode "The Vampires of Venice". In what way would changing Rory's description improve the readers understanding of "The Vampires of Venice"?
We'll have to agree to disagree about fandom trumping reliable sources.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just covering the whole general discussion of Rory as a companion as this is the main discussion (actually being directed here from another discussion page). But nonetheless, Rory fallaciously not being listed as a companion here also means the article needs to be improved and maintained. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rory fallaciously not being listed as a companion here also means the article needs to be improved and maintained
OK, three points here:
  • That it's "fallacious" is your opinion, and to date you've not offered anything that would convince me that it is improper to list Rory as a "guest".
  • Secondly, how does Rory not being listed as a "companion" harm the article - or indeed any episode's article? Is "guest" inaccurate? If so, why?
  • Thirdly, what's the rush? Why not wait until the BBC (the good folk who produce Doctor Who) say Rory's a "companion"?
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it's an opinion, as is you thinking that without the information, the article is not harmed. It's all about your sense of judgment. So long as known information is missing or incorrect, the article is damaged. Likewise, there haven't been any provided reasons why Rory SHOULDN'T be listed as a companion other than a rule prevents it, which can be ignored.
Also, I'm just discussing the point it as it's come up. There really is no reason he shouldn't be listed since it's generally accepted knowledge. Would you feel better if he were listed as a companion with a [citation needed] attached? 67.58.191.105 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "known information" is missing or incorrect? That "fandom considers Rory to be a companion"? Why should a casual reader care what dedicated fans believe? Note that I'm not dismissing fandom (I've even said elsewhere that I personally consider Rory to be a companion!) - I've been a Doctor Who fan myself since back in the day...
There have been plenty of reasons provided why Rory shouldn't be included as a companion until a reliable source states that he is a companion. You chose to invoke WP:IGNORE, rather than accept policy. Fair enough. Since WP:IGNORE is geared round improving and maintaining the encyclopaedia, I'm trying to ascertain from you how your proposed change would improve or maintain Wikipedia. WHy does it harm this article if readers can't find out what a certain group of fans believe?
Really, there are better places for "generally accepted knowledge". Wikipedia is for reliably sourced, verifiable, referenced knowledge.
And, again, what's the rush? Why not wait until the BBC (the good folk who produce Doctor Who) say Rory's a "companion"?
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 16:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't harmful, as WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY state, if a claim is doubtful but not harmful, a [citation needed] can be added. This also satisfies WP:CON as a compromise will be met; it allows Rory to be listed as a companion as well as acknowledging that a reliable source has not been provided. In fact, it would actually encourage a reliable source to be found. And surely if you're not in a hurry to list him as a companion, you should be able to wait a reasonable length of time to remove the claim if a reliable source is not provided. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
< I've never read such crap in my life. What do you think the point of WP:V et al is? (For some light reading, check out [1] and [2]) – ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really argue with that, beyond adding that we've already been waiting a reasonable length of time. No reliable source has yet been provided. {{cn}} tags are used when dubious information is added; we're discussing whether dubious information should be added. It shouldn't. TFOWRpropaganda 17:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:CIVIL? And at any rate, by that logic, Rory should already be listed with a [citation needed]. You can afford to wait a reasonable length of time since you seem so patient (I mean, Doctor Who is over in a few weeks anyway, only two of which Rory is confirmed to be in. That's reasonable enough). By the size of this discussion, a compromise needs to be formed, and the one I've provided is satisfactory enough. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise needs to be formed, and the one I've provided is satisfactory enough. I see only you in favour of it, and two experienced editors opposed. Does that strike you as a "satisfactory" compromise? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've have far to many recent prolonged discussions with editors who don't understand WP:CIVIL to start again, other than to agree that this argument is crap.
Why should Rory-as-guest be given a {{cn}} tag? Are you saying Rory has been in every episode? Or would you agree that he's guested? Actually, I don't care. This isn't going anywhere. TFOWRpropaganda 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NVC. Furthermore, tagging him with a [citation needed] shows that no reliable source has been provided and is acknowledging that the veritably is willing to be disprove, which is the whole point of removing him without a source but without all the edit wars. It's the middle ground between removing him for not having a reliable source and adding him without providing one (which I still don't think is necessary as companions are dubbed so by the fandom, but I digress). 67.58.191.105 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that takes the 'crap' biscuit. Aside from the fact that WP:NVC isn't a policy, if you think it means, "Any one person can edit against consensus and unilaterally dictate a so-called compromise," then you are severely mistaken. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, I've been the one trying to REACH a consensus. The edit wars are still happening and you've been continuously been trying to encourage them. Being an "experienced editor" doesn't mean YOU can edit against consensus either. Pull back on the hostility a bit.
Here's my proposed solution and, against my better judgment, I'll allow you to decide the course of action and I'll agree with your decision because, to be honest, I just want this over with. Add Rory as a companion, including a {{cn}} until the 29th unless a reliable source can be provided. This should stop the continuous adding him in and taking him out while at the same time edit wars while also showing that a reliable source has not been found and needs to be added.
Bored now. Gonna go... do something else. I don't really care for discussing this further since it's probably not going to get anywhere. Do what you want. 67.58.191.105 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider the enforcement of clear Wikipedia policy as "encouraging" edit-wars, then yes, I have been encouraging them, and proudly. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rory is a companion? What's on TV

  • In a review of Vampires of Venice on Dr Who Online [3], scroll down to 7th May 2010, it says One scene in particular proves his worthiness as a possible companion. So only possible companion status here.
Because the BBC say that Bruno is a companion [4]. magnius (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And BBC says also that Rory is a companion

[5] Hektor (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious, in that context it talks about the three companions as in a group of friends, use that source and The Doctor himself becomes his own companion. magnius (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've actually read the ref, I'd tend to agree. Hektor, I'm also a wee bit concerned at your edit summary here. This thread would seem to discount the "no debate" claim. The ideal would seem to be to discuss once reverted. TFOWRpropaganda 22:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another break

This [6] is very carefully phrased to avoid saying Rory is a companion. Or is this just me? Edgepedia (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just you. It doesn't look carefully phrased to me, it looks... naturally phrased? AnemoneProjectors 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The"

Oh dear. Official BBC press release calls this episode "The Vampires of Venice", official Doctor Who website calls it "Vampires of Venice". [7] (Although with one instance of the "the" on this page, perhaps suggesting a last minute change?) Whatever do we do? U-Mos (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We...wait until next week? DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best. I would say, however, that if that one "the" version on the DW site is changed, that's probably good enough to move the page imo. U-Mos (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to go with the Press Office version for THE moment, since we rely on that for the synopsis details. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official site has amended itself to "The Vampires of Venice", FYI. U-Mos (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Handy links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2010/may/08/doctor-who-vampires-of-venice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7692610/Doctor-Who-review-Vampires-of-Venice.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasty monster (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh look at this!

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/AnyArticle/p.rdt?URL=http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE52B4RU20090312

Isn't that lovely? Tasty monster (=TS ) 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is too fat

The plot section seems to contain far more words than are necessary. It should probably be trimmed by a couple of hundred words, perhaps more. Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is!

Rory is the betrothed of another companion, is invited to travel, is welcomed into the TARDIS as a guest and is treated as a valuable friend by the Doctor. He's a comedy sidekick, but so is Mickey, who never appears to come close to marrying Rose.

There should be a presumption that, if the Doctor freely invites somebody into the TARDIS ane the guest accepts and takes part in an adventure, that person is a time traveller in the TARDIS (a companion if you will). Stowaways and whatnot can be judged on the evidence. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the original research. Now if you can provide a reliable source to corroborate all that, then it'll be perfect.
Anyway, please continue this in the above thread talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ?.DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, for technical reasons I can't edit that discussion, sorry to be irritating. The points I raise aren't original research, but perhaps my reasoning is. I think we should use the well established term "guest star" and refer to actors rather than characters, but perhaps it's too late to suggest that. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tasty monster. Of course it's OR to say he's a companion because of episodic events, but it's not OR if we have a source defining companion and Rory fits that definition within the show. U-Mos (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the source. DonQuixote (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I believed there was one at Companion (Doctor Who). My mistake. U-Mos (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llancaiach Fawr

I just want to point out that the scenes where the vampire girls break through the windows when the team are sitting around a table is shot on the ground floor of Llancaiach Fawr Manor link to photos from that days filming and that some of the underground tunnel scenes were filmed in caerphilly castle link to photos of filming in for that day too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.206.8 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Vampires_of_Venice&oldid=362967374"