Talk:Silence in the Library

River Song and The Doctor

River Song is a new character, but an unusual one in that she is apparently familiar with Doctor Who and seems to know quite a lot about him.

In one addition that was removed from the article, I remarked that her reaction to Doctor Who's mention of Emergency Programme One demonstrates her familiarity with the TARDIS. I later went back and examined the scene, which is a minute or two before the cliffhanger ending and leads up to it. Doctor Who says something like "If she's alone in the TARDIS for more than five hours, Emergency Programme One will be triggered", and River Song completes his sentence for him, something like "yes, sending her home."

I think this was a valid addition to the continuity aspects of the article. For instance, in the current version (22:11 UTC, 5 June 2008) we have:

The Doctor mentions that "emergency program one" will send Donna home should she be left in alone the TARDIS for five hours. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home.

As I implied above, this is inaccurate. The following would be more accurate:

The Doctor mentions that "emergency program one" will activate should she be left in alone the TARDIS for five hours. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home. River Song reveals an apparent familiarity with the programme, by saying that this programme will send Donna home.

Furthermore I think it might be appropriate to produce a few paragraphs about the way in which writer Steven Moffat demonstrates River Song's apparent familiarity with The Doctor. These include her possession of a sonic screwdriver that he recognises as exactly like his own, which she claims he gave her.

Now at this stage we can't rule out subterfuge or byzantine plot twists (hence my use of the qualifier "apparent" above), but I think there is a lot we can say here which is reasonable analysis rather than synthesis. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your name is a mouthful. Ok, that's out of the way. It seems like sort of a tangent in continuity, as it's not really continuity yet. More like an answer without the question. Not quite sure where to work it in, though I agree that River's familiarity bears mention. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This cannot be in the continuity section, as it simply isn't continuity. The only place it could go in this article is the synopsis, but it may be difficult to know where. My advice would be to wait, becaue River Song will probable become notable enough for her own article in the future. U-Mos (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see the comment "it's not really continuity yet". Someone previously unknown demonstrates apparent knowledge of specific features of the TARDIS featured in previous episodes, and uses a weapon or device whose effects are recognised by the Doctor as resembling one that appeared in a previous episode. That's obviously continuity between this episode and previous ones, irrespective of the actual explanation for those events (River Song could be faking it, but that doesn't negate the continuity between this episode and those). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To be continuity, it would have to relate to another episode of Doctor Who. While program one itself does, River Song's knowledge of the TARDIS deos not. If, for instance, in a future episode program one is used on her, the point could be mentioned in this article. But her knowledge is part of the mystery of her character, and is not relevant to any other episode. I have added a sentence where RS is first mentioned in the synopsis, and this should suffice here. U-Mos (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's continuity, and it does relate to other episodes (as I've shown): she uses a device that the Doctor recognises and that we have seen in another episode (crucially, one written by the same author), and she's aware of the function of a TARDIS program we've seen in another episode. Another potential item of continuity (though a tenuous one and probably not worthy of mention) is that her purported "Life of a time traveller" manuscript (she calls it by that title) has a cover patterned after the paneling of the police box-shaped TARDIS. These are items that connect this person in some way to events from past episodes and to the general continuity of the program (the Doctor is seldom far from his TARDIS which has held its shape, with perhaps a few exceptions, since November, 1963.) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the squareness gun is already mentioned. Secondly, although her knowledge is notable (as I said, it's now in the synopsis), it is not continuity. River having knowledge of the TARDIS is not relevant to any other episode, or the show as a whole. It is relevant to her and this episode only. Just because she displays knowledge of an aspect specifically mentioned before in the series does not make it relevant to this other mention, although of course the program warrants a continuity point on its own. But the essence of the point is not that she knows emergency program one, but that she knows about the TARDIS. This is not (yet?) relevant to the continuity of Doctor Who. As I said earlier, if in the future of the show she is subjected to emergency program one it will become notable in that sense. U-Mos (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree. While we agree that it's important, there's no argument about that, it's not continuity in the sense that it relates to previous episodes. It's just plot points to be resolved next time. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a clear disagreement by numerous editors with my concept of continuity so I'll defer to the majority. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be a dumb question, but how precisely is the mention of the squareness gun vital to the article? While I can almost get on board with the mention of the Tardis program, I am puzzled as to why the gun bears mentioning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... because it's an item seen in a previous episode? Ergo CONTINUITY? U-Mos (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't sarcasm I detected, was it? 'Coz my point was to ask how the mentioning of a squareness gun being used before in another episode is vital to the understanding of this episode. Might you answer that, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, Arcayne. Here we go: in the Doctor Who Confidential following the broadcast of River's Run [I refuse to give it its changed title it being rubbish!], Steven Moffat, the writer, implied that the gun was the same one used by Jack Harkness, and that River picked it up during her time in the TARDIS, where Jack left it. I've not yet looked to see whether this is properly sourced in the article; it certainly is in the River's Run article. If not, I'll deal with it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Thanks, TT. I understand why it was mentioned in continuity. I am curious as to why it is vital to the understanding of this episode. I.e., would the article suffer from the squareness gun not being mentioned? Would the reader be totally derailed by us simply noting that they escaped the shadows? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article would not suffer, but the continuity section would be missing a point. U-Mos (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The article on vacuum cleaners, for example, wouldn't suffer if the fact that its 1905 inventor, Walter Griffiths, lived in Birmingham, were omitted. But it's nonetheless interesting, relevant and has some possible value to some readers, and that's what an encyclopedia is for, after all. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)With respect, if it isn't vital to the article, then the section wouldn't be losing a point - the article would be trimming off the unnecessary fat (and, as some would term it, cruft), leaving a leaner and better article. Actually, noting where an inventor comes from isn't a very good example, as noting where someone is from isn't necessarily cruft, whilst noting that he liked jelly doughnuts might be; it isn't vital to understanding the article, the inventor or the process of invention (which bears mentioning that Griffiths isn't actually the inventor of the hoover, according to the article, but instead one of many). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Shorter=better? I don't believe so. U-Mos (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. I said leaner, not shorter. There is a notable difference. We can trim away everything that isn't a vital part of the article subject. That done, the only text left remaining is that vital to the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As well, could I trouble you to properly indent your replies? Conversation flows a lot better when indenting shows the progression of conversation. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The squareness gun absolutely isn't vital to the program. It's just one means by which the writer shows the continuity between the new character, River Song, and the Doctor's past. Another method is by her possession of a sonic screwdriver that has been modified to preserve her personality after her death. Another method is by her knowledge of his name. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, there are a number of problems with that explanation, ANLA Ant. The first part is that if it were indeed a method by which the writer was pointing to knowledge that Song had of the Doctor, it has already been addressed in the Plot Summary section. Redundancy isn't required. Also, if all the points in continuity are supposed to point to such, then the section should be re-titled foreshadowing or some such thing, as the writer was pointing to all of these things to illustrate how Song knows the Doctor as he will be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you can call me Ant, Antsy or Tony, Second, I think we already had this discussion and clearly my concept of continuity (to my considerable surprise) did not prevail. I demur from further debate on this occasion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Ant - no offense was intended as it was just the acronym of your new name (which is indeed quite a bit to say). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the view that everything that isn't necessary to the article should be removed. There is always room for a point of interest, as long as it's done in the right way. U-Mos (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we tend to call that trivia and (as an encyclopedia) we tend to discourage the addition of 'interesting tidbits'. There is also the problem that occurs when trying to answer who the points of interest would be interesting to. Probably not the regular reader, or the Doctor Who uninitiated. When I ran the bits past an admin (who knew little about Doctor Who), he couldn't understand what the bits meant; therefore, not very useful to the article.

The right way to include such is to integrate it into a production section, specifically discussing the method by which the writers/directors/whatever chose to integrate pieces from prior episodes. Clearly, it didn't happen by mistake, and there must be a series "Bible" that the production refer to (and kudos to anyone who gets their hands upon that). Doing it that way removes the in-universe writing style that tends to permeate these sorts of articles.

Long or short, the problems remain the same. At their basis, many of the comments are cruft, and not integral to the article. There is also the problem of notability and synthesis (the latter of which has been resolved mostly through the usage of citation). As such, unless they can be integrated into a real-world description of the process, they don't belong here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

While Arcayne and I may have a difference of opinions in regards to synthesis, we do seem to agree on the issue of trivia. The continuity sections of Doctor Who episodes do seem to be overflowing with what could be considered Trivia. I don't have much to add that Arcayne hasn't already stated, and my work schedule has gotten a bit away from me the last couple of weeks. In short, I lend my voice to support Arcayne's perspective on the issue of Trivia.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's not really much I can say here. You have your views on this, and I completely disagree. What I would say is that this style of continuity section is present across the entire set of Doctor Who episode/serial articles, so you would be better off raising your issue in the Doctor Who WikiProject. U-Mos (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) Okay, I respect that you have a right to disagree. Perhaps you could tell me why you specifically disagree, so that we can iron out our differences. As for raising the issue in the Dr. Who Wikiproject, I have done so here. With respect, the beauty of a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that formats frequently change. As this is an encyclopedia, there is the added consideration that articles don't get to be different from ones from other programs or genres simply because there are many of them. Trivia is trivia, and perhaps can be best served by being integrated them into other sections/new sections, as I suggested above. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would ask here first, rather than presume to edit. But amongst the things that tie this episode to the 5th series is when Professor Song is talking to Anita about "her Doctor", she says, "The Doctor in the TARDIS. Next stop, everywhere". The latter said by the 11th Doctor to Amy Pond, but more importantly, the former used by Prisoner Zero and Angel Bob. Interestingly, the Doctor appears at that moment, saying "Spoilers". Anyway, should "The Doctor in the TARDIS" be mentioned? LMB02 (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Continuity section: primary source

"Doctor Who website" = primary source. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The episodes are a primary source. Background material about the writing and production is secondary, I believe. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It is directly affiliated with the subject. Would be like using a Coca-Cola website to write about the production of Coca-Cola. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I was under the impression that secondary sources are "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event" – like a discussion of the writing/production of a TV series, say. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys... Primare source != necessarily bad. We are dealing with fiction here; it is very hard to come by secondary sources, so primary sources (being the episodes) are allowed. As far as the BBC website goes; yes, they are related, but the webteam building the site is independent from the programme's producers, so it can be used as a reliable secondary source. — Edokter • Talk • 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I just do not see this stuff as having gotten significant discussion in secondary sources not affiliated with the article's subject. It is not notable or noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Edokter and I can see it... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Plankton

I cannot see how this fact possibly violates NOR. It uses primary sources to make a wholly descriptive claim - that these two texts by Steven Moffat both contain an identical joke. It does not claim that the latter use is an explicit reference or in-joke, or give any attempt at a (synthesized) explanation - it merely notes that the same joke is used in both sources. Were the sources by different authors it could perhaps be called OR on the grounds that it implies causality, but this is two things by the same writer. Were the article claiming anything other than that the line appears in both episodes, it might be OR. But as it stands, the claim is the very definition of "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The claim is merely "A joke about being pleased at being told you have the IQ of plankton appears in both sources." That is, in fact, straightforward and descriptive. 96.39.62.90 (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It easily could be happenstance. Without any statement from Moffat, or a comparison made by a reliable source that notes this, it's simply extraneous. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It could be happenstance that Steven Moffat twice came up with a joke that no other writer I am aware of has ever used? That's a stretch, to say the least. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean, it seems like the relevant facts are these. 1) An IQ of plankton joke appears in Press Gang. 2) An IQ of plankton joke appears in Silence in the Library, written by the same writer as Press Gang. 3) There is no #3. 1 and 2 are sufficiently interesting to constitute a fact about the production of Silence in the Library, namely that it contains an element previously used by the same writer. It's as straightforward as saying "this is a list of stories in which Daleks appear" - an eminently verifiable, clear-cut description of a common element in multiple works. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not clearcut. We have no assurance it was intentional; maybe he wrote it, forgetting he did it before, and happened to write it the same. Jokes relating IQ and plankton is certain is not new at all.

What you're trying to suggest is exactly how trivial cultural references get started on WP. People make casual links between two different works, and assume they must be connected. Some may be, most aren't. This is why when we add anything that is not immediately obvious within the work of fiction, it must be sourced. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really, step 3 is "you say they are related", what you are doing appears to be a variation of WP:SYNTH. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The language I've inserted makes no claims about intent. It doesn't seem to me that intent matters. Whether he recycled the joke deliberately (making it a reference) or accidentally (making it an interesting example of the writer's general style) is immaterial - the mere fact of the parallel is itself an interesting fact that sheds light on the nature of Steven Moffat's writing. 71.88.35.24 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"the mere fact of the parallel is itself an interesting fact" is exactly how we get popular culture references. It is an interesting fact, and I would be curious to know if that was delibrate; if it is and that can be sourced, great we can add it. But until then, it's an interesting observation and nothing more. If a reliable source made the observation that they are similar, then we can also include that observation. But otherwise it is original research. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuity additions

@Mezigue: I noticed that you deleted some of the continuity section previously added, and thought that some of it is worth adding back. I agree that it's off topic to deeply talk about all the events mentioned, but given that they are direct references and later form important plot points, I think it's worth mentioning them. Before you delete what I've added, can we talk about exactly what is relevant and come to some consensus? Smith(talk) 23:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

While we have our WP:SPOILER guideline (that is, we don't care about spoilers), continuity sections should not be forward-looking, unless the episode of discussion is significant towards a future episode, for example, the future episode explaining what had happened to a character that had disappeared for some of the episode. (An example of this would be from Babylon 5, that it is important to point out that many things brought up in the first season episode "Babylon Squared" are then subsequently built up and explained in detail in the 3rd season "War Without End (Babylon 5)" due to the nature of the time travel story). In the case of the stuff with River Song and how "The Many Husbands of RS" worked out, I don't believe these are needed here. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the point of these sections is to decode things in the episode under discussion that are not immediately understandable without reference to other work. There is none of that, as all the stuff River Song mentions was simply made up on the hoof and the character was not even meant to return. There is no need to endlessly cross-reference stories otherwise.

I think that's a little arbitrary. I remember when I first watched this episode, I'd not seem the first season and thus never seen the "squareness gun" before yet I was significantly more confused about River's history than the gun. Knowledge of where the gun comes from is not needed to understand the episode, yet I wouldn't argue that it should be removed. I understand that it's not necessary to link all the events she mentions, but I think the gifting of the diary, for example, is, given how many times we see it and that it's impending filling is a plot point later on. Smith(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mezigue:@Masem: Do we have any clear guidelines for what should be in a continuity section? WP:TVPLOT has nothing. I really do believe that some mention of this episode's place in the continuity has to be made, given how much the events talked about are referred to. Smith(talk) 16:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

First and foremost, anything in continuity needs to be from a third-party source (the BBC counts here) so that we aren't engaging in OR in what is continuity or not. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)