Talk:Kill the Moon

Courtney Woods a companion

Since there seems to be slo-mo edit warring going on over this, I thought I'd create a section for discussion. Have at, folks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The last time a similar thread was started about this topic this happened. In the end all it came down to was the need for a source which, once published, solved the problem. So that's all we need here. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms

There needs to be acknowledgment that this episode of this series has popularly been regarded as one of the worst so far. Just look at some of the negative reviews people have been making on online forums. For example why do we hear their footsteps while they are walking on the moon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.239.98 (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the episode was only broadcast two days ago, it takes time to build up an accurate view of the reception of the episode. Editors generally go for the big name reviewers first and then add more as time goes on. If you've found a reliable negative review of these episodes (forums can't be used directly although if you find a reliable source that says something like "people took to the forums to complain..." that would do) please add them and adjust the article to suit. If you haven't contributed to Wikipedia before, please read this first. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The criticism and abuse you've read online is from individual viewers, not from official reviewers, who have given it a positive rating. There's a very big difference. Just because a few disgruntled fans disliked it, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good episode overall. And simply because reviewers gave it a good rating, this doesn't mean that they were paid by the BBC to do so. I personally loved it. If you can find a good source that it was a bad episode, then put it across. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was absolutely awful. I've been on DW forums where people have said that it was so bad they're going to stop watching the rest of the season. I appreciate the role of Wikipedia is not to act as a forum for people to express their opinion, but it seems frustrating that the "Reception" section of the article makes it sound like it was universally loved based on the views of generic TV reviewers. The latent disgruntlement of fans is not acknowledged. The inclusion of the BBC Radio Times reviewing a BBC show as 5/5 seems a bit of a conflict of interest. 193.194.132.70 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because they're not official viewers, and lately it seems that people just want to find things to complain about on the show. Find us a good source that it was bad. Your personal opinions don't count. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If any of these are suitable sources, The Register thought it was 'utterly infuriating', the Times was ambivalent (three stars out of five in the 2014-10-06 paper edition) and Ewan Spence on forbes.com "could happily live with never having to watch this episode again". The worst review I've seen was from the Daily Mail (one star out of five) but that was directed more at the season thus far. HungryHorace (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's another negative review from Slate I think that this combined with those cited above are more than enough to revise the reception section. Seems to me that it would be appropriate the call characterize the episode's reception as highly polarized, with little middle ground.--Jayemay (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it seems a bit strange that this site says it was critically acclaimed, when I've heard nothing but complaints about this episode from all over my Twitter and Facebook news feeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Critically acclaimed by reviewers. Not by your disgruntled fanboy/fangirl friends. Please learn to read, both the article and the conversation above. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't just forums, tumblr and blogs this goes on in. Here's The Register calling it "an illogical, unscientific soap opera", The Independent calls it "perhaps the weakest episode so far this series", Forbes says "‘Kill the Moon’ wasn’t good drama, it delivered false controversy, and it did not respect the debate it was trying to start in the viewers at home. If it wasn’t for the arc elements, I could happily live with never having to watch this episode again. Dieselmannen (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Could PLEASE add a section regarding how the plot makes absolutely no sense with just a tiny bit of science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.195.167 (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Find a reliable source stating this^, and we will. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It was filmed on location. Every detail is absolutely scientifically accurate. Like every other episode.

174.164.223.51 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (a decade late and a dollar short).

Reminder: The Talk Page Guidelines say "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Phrases like "I personally loved it" really don't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.53.244 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kill the Moon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140919231357/http://chart.doctorwhospoilers.com/ to http://chart.doctorwhospoilers.com/

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) 07:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

(Wildly) polarising?

There isn't any source, such as MC or RT, that indicates "(wildly) polarising reviews". The reviews can speak for themselves. Sebastian James (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Haven't we agreed at least to drop the word wildly though? TedEdwards 15:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You can look at this recent edit for example. Sebastian James (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: It's fine to say polarised and generally positive, looking at one of your edit summaries. Generally positive means most reviews are positive, polarised means there are some (very) positive reviews and some (very) negative. So together they mean most reviews are positive but a sizeable minority aren't. So it makes sense. It's also a fairly normal thing to summarize reviews, as Alex said, and don't need a source beyond the actual reviews we are summarizing. We also do things differently to films; it's a different Wikiproject. I also notice you've recently been changing the review summaries on other Doctor Who articles. Are these summaries sourced (genuine question, not rhetorical)? Also, as a side note, while I'm a bit annoyed at Alex atm, I don't think was a very tactful thing to say Are you sure you are okay? to [Alex]. TedEdwards 13:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

[1] A bitterly polarizing episode, [2] shaping up to be the most polarizing episode of season 8 so far. Also, one edit at a completely unrelated article does not support you - just because other stuff happened, it doesn't need to here. Also, polarizing doesn't mean mixed, positive and negative reviews, it's as Ted said: "some (very) positive reviews and some (very) negative". Each end of the scale, not just a bit of everything. -- Alex^TW 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The EXAMPLE was meant to show an unsourced summarisation that you think is "always beneficial". Since you provided the sources, you should put them to the article. Sebastian James (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So, if the sources Alex's provided (thanks for that Alex) are included in the article, is that consensus? TedEdwards 22:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I checked the sources. ScreenRant one states "'Kill The Moon' is shaping up to be the most polarizing episode of season 8 so far, with some fans still advocating for the new Doctor as a dark antihero and other shouting "but what about THE CANON?!?!"" so this can't be used. And Huffington Post similiarly states "If you’re looking to start a fight among Doctor Who fans, just bring up “Kill The Moon.” A bitterly polarizing episode, there is very little middle ground between “absolute classic” and “series low point” when it’s being discussed." which I think is also not convenient to reference. So, your suggestions for other sources? Sebastian James (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your "personal opinion" is not part of WP:V or WP:RS. What part of WP:V or WP:RS do these sources fail? If the answer is "nothing", then they are acceptable, whether or not you like it. -- Alex^TW 23:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not a personal opinion. I can't believe I'm explaining it. SOME FANS can't be associated with critics nor critical reception. You were just covering the sources. Did you really think that showing only some parts would make you right? It is clear whose edits are disputed. If you are not here for a conclusion, which I think you definitely are not, you must stop stealing our time. Sebastian James (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And now I'm gonna show something useful and not redundant for this conversation, unlike you: MOS:TVRECEPTION. Sebastian James (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Once you are happy to have a WP:CIVIL discussion, I'll continue. See how when I quote a guideline or policy, I explain its usage? Cheers. -- Alex^TW 23:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Since sources have been suggested for the disputed statement, I suggest this be settled at WP:NORN (or possibly WP:RSN). Right now, it looks like the article is heading toward full protection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

All that is needed to resolve this is a source in the lead, and sources that fulfill MOS:TVRECEPTION in the relevant section. Is that too much to ask? 2001:8003:591D:2400:CC14:5979:5AE1:1879 (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This here is hilarious. So consensus needed to REMOVE the sentence. Since when? Are you saying that you want to keep an unsourced info because of reverting issues? Sebastian James (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Consensus is needed to change from the WP:STATUSQUO, not to it. Since there has been no consensus to remove the sentences, the status quo should remain, which is why I reverted. btw. I've undone your edit done under an IP address, to keep the article at the status quo for now. TedEdwards 17:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not me. And I can't do it, because I have IPBE for a reason. I'm glad you mentioned it because I have never seen it, and thanks for believing this nonsense. Sebastian James (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, evidently I'm not the only person to think you're were editing while logged out. And you managed to edit your talk page to request IPBE (so I assume without using a blocked IP), so surely you could have used a different IP for those edits. TedEdwards 21:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is banned in my country. And nearly in all cases banned IP's are able to edit talk pages. Sebastian James (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was the very reason your first request was denied, so I assume the admin knew what they were talking about. TedEdwards 23:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It was not the very reason my first request was denied. It looks like you are also bad at stalking. Shame. Sebastian James (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You've just shown that your first request was denied by JustChilling because you have been able to edit to post this request I regret that you do not have the necessary "genuine and exceptional need". So what I said. I'm guessing you have IPBE because you have to use proxys, but you used another proxy to edit your talk page to make a request (perhaps before that proxy was blocked). So what was stopping you using another proxy? And don't call other editors stalkers, it breaches WP:CIVIL (thought you might ignore the warning if I put it on your talk page given your past actions). TedEdwards 22:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not state that ban, that's why JustChilling responded like that. Per WP:HOUND (which is what you are ignoring), i don't think it breaches WP:CIVIL. You are accusing me without an evidence, moreover insisting to comment about the contributor, not the topic. This is not the place, nor is my talk page. Sebastian James (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you actually read WP:HOUND, and note the word repeatedly? Also, I do have evidence it was you, the IP (who judging by one of the edit summaries is experienced in Wikipedia anyway when they mention WP:OR) reverted the same edit as you've been doing repeatedly, so that's behaviorial evidence. As it's a one off incident, I'm not going to report you, so can we drop that? And you were the first editor to go off track, when you replied to my message by only refering to IPBE. So, back on track, I agreed with you that calling the polarizing nature of the episode "notable" would need a source, and the word "wildly" was too strong. But the fact of the matter is in the sources that we cite, some were very positive and some very negative. Per MOS:TVRECEPTION, you should analyse how the television show was received (which is something I notice from my watchlist you've done many times), so a valid analysis of this episode is while a majority were positive, some reviews have completely opposite opinions. So describing the reviews as "polarising" is a valid analysis. TedEdwards 17:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm so scared, you have a great evidence. Definitely provable. Report me as soon as possible. I will be banned the moment you report me. What should I do??? LOL!

You have been stalking me and disapproving my edits on various articles over the course of couple of months. That's disturbing, and is also contrary to WP: HOUND. Also, I use summarisation of reviews based on RT, which is a source "Kill the Moon" doesn't have. So this long paragraph of yours, as expected, doesn't add anything to reach a consensus. I will most likely won't respond to you again, if you reply as per above (I think you will). Sebastian James (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The critical reception section is ridiculously gigantic.

The reception was clearly about average, and in no way justifies making it the starring section of this article. About 90% of it needs editing into the spacetime vortex, or at least compactifying. This must be the the biggest such section in the sixty years of the program. I hope those responsible are properly embarrassed. They should be the ones to wield the machete, before others have to do the clean up in aisle six routine for them. 84.67.32.241 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)