Talk:From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British / Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Title

On the Outpost forum (registration required), Clayton Hickman reveals that the title of this special is "From Raxacoricofallapatorius With Love". Is this enough to update and move the article, or do we need to wait until a published source mentions it? Etron81 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically a posting on the Doctor Who Forum is a self-published source, which WP:V tuts at. But it also says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As the former editor of Doctor Who Magazine and author of the episode in question, I'd say that Clayton Hickman meets this criterion, so we can go ahead and move the page.

After it's moved, it would be good to add a link from the relevant section of Red Nose Day 2009 as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are forums counted as Reliable Sources? How do we know that he's telling the truth - the post looks as though he is joking - and there is no way of being able to tell that this was actually a title. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, forums are not generally reliable sources. However, a posting by a known author on a forum is a self-published source, which (as I noted above) are acceptable in a few, limited circumstances.

As for whether Hickman was joking, in an earlier post in the same thread he said, "Nobody's asked #3 - what's the official title? And there was one on the front of the scripts... ;-)" Although there's a teasing "I know something you don't know" quality to the post, I don't see any reason to doubt its veracity. The author of the special has said this was the title on the scripts. That's good enough for me, and more to the point I think it's good enough for Wikipedia, per WP:SPS. I don't see any problem with using this title for the SJA sketch, especially since other programmes (Vicar of Dibley, etc.) have had Red Nose Day specials. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know he's actually seen the scripts? How do we know he is actually the person he says he is? I mean it's free registration so I could go on and say I was RTD and make up all sorts of stuff - would that be counted as reliable? Also, don't wikipedia rules discourge linking to sources that you have to register to in order to see the content? Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prefers sources that do not require registration when a free source is available, but sources that require registration are not forbidden. As for the accuracy of Clayton Hickman being Clayton Hickman — I agree that in the abstract it's problematic, but in this particular case Clay has an established presence on the Doctor Who Forum, dating back from when he was the editor of DWM. He used to reveal details of forthcoming magazines before they were published, and confirmed his identity in other ways. Of course, I recognize that this background isn't available to all readers/editors, and that I'm basically asserting that Hickman is who he says he is on my own authority. On the strictest interpretation of WP:V, the forum posting probably isn't quite good enough. But I don't think that this is a case where we need to follow the strictest interpretation. If this article were a biography of a living person, the overabundance of caution would be appropriate — but who is harmed if we use a title that is accurate, but not adequately verified, for a Comic Relief sketch from a children's science fiction programme?

If it helps, Clay also confirmed the title on his Twitter account... which I suppose has the same problems with verifiability, as there are impersonators on Twitter. But I happen to know that this is Clay Hickman, and the Benjamin Cook with whom he's corresponding on Twitter is the DWM journalist and co-author of Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale. That gives us two self-published sources from (someone claiming to be) the author of the episode. At some point Occam's razor comes into play, and the simplest solution is that both Clay Hickmans are who they say they are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't intend to move the page back until it had been discussed, but someone else moved the page to From raxacoricofallapatorius with love, which was an inaccurate capitalization. I figured that if it was going to be at that title, it should at least be capitalized correctly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Hickman has chimed in on this discussion:

Hilarious! I had no idea people bothered so much about what was written on Wikipedia!
I love all the mystery about whether I'm the 'real' Clayton Hickman. As if anyone would bother pretending to be me!
Oh my aching sides. The internet never fails to astound me in its madness...
C
x

Of course, if you want to be paranoid you could point out that this is just what someone pretending to be Clay Hickman would say... ;D —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see I am now getting called paranoid for trying to follow wikipedia gidelines. Fine then. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, "paranoid" was a bit uncivil; I apologize. But I really do feel that this is one of the cases where we should follow the recommendation at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

Adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief History is now reporting the same title - so it appears that it was correct. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched the episode (unlocked by answering trivia questions on DVD). He didn't say anything about taking Mr. Smith, only K9. 71.31.211.114 (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Spot of Bother

Is Rani-Slitheen's parting dialogue ("Oh, bother!") a reference to "World War Three" when the Slitheen are about to say a –ahem– similar word when the missile is about to destroy Number 10? Or is this original research? Hard to say sometimes Absurdtrousers (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]