Talk:Spyfall (TV story)

The Master
I am excited for the return of the Master but as per the instructions in, shouldn't we be cautious about O's actual identity since the revelation happened in the cliffhanger? We only have to wait four days to confirm this so I wonder if it would be worth the effort to wait especially given the huge number of edits the introduction of a new Master causes. --Borisashton ☎  20:39, January 1, 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting he is credited as "O" rather than the Master. --Borisashton ☎  20:58, January 1, 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, while I'm pretty sure he is credited as "O" simply to keep the reveal a surprise, considering there are reasonable doubts, and that it is after all a short wait to get more information, I think being cautious is a good idea. Better be safe than sorry after all, and once we have the full two parter, it should be easier to do all the edits that need to be done with a new incarnation. Liria10 ☎  21:34, January 1, 2020 (UTC)

Holding off
Both pages, the Master and O (Spyfall), have been locked for editing until the bottom of the hour after broadcast ends on part two. Until then, as explains, we must be careful in our coverage. As regards this character, who himself proclaims that all we think we know is (or might be, here) wrong, we should practice even more caution.

By any common reading, the cliffhanger to The Stolen Earth suggested we would be getting a new Doctor in the coming story, but next week's Journey's End subverted this within seconds, really. Hell, the "big reveal" that led right into the credits of Death in Heaven would have had us believe that Clara was the Doctor all along. By their very nature, cliffhanger reveals are, more often than not, unreliable. Now this is a story already involving espionage, false identities. Not to mention our alien threat, which still reeks of the unknown. Our main characters even begin to uncover a plot which the Doctor believes might have something to do with "multiple Earths". We won't know what's going on, fully, until all is revealed.

So out of an abundance of caution, until Part Two provides more context, we must stick to the facts and take care not to make any claims, however obvious they might seem, that might reasonably be doubted.

Both pages I linked to above make use of language like "according to X character", "X person told the Doctor", and "a man who claimed to be Y" rather than trusting — just yet — that they are who they say they are. In the coming days, we stick to this approach. There might be any number of things going on, behind layers of subterfuge, but it's not for us to editorialise. So until this story is released in its entirety, we must hold off on making any big proclamations, and say only exactly as much as the text allows. This applies to all pages. We'll pick this up when Part Two arrives. 03:32, January 2, 2020 (UTC)

Story numbering
Wikipedia notes this as story 288, while we have it as story 287. This stems from Wikipedia listing Heaven Sent & Hell Bent as stories 261 & 262, while we have them listed as 261a & 261b. Which numbering is correct? What proves that correctness? - UtherSRG ☎  18:28, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Different Wikis have different ways of doing things, but if I were to put my two cents on it, then Wikipedia is wrong, since those two are a two-parter and different numbering, in the case of this Wikia at least, means that they a two standalones. --DCLM ☎  18:46, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * imho if it's pt. 1 and 2 it should be a and b. if different title like Heaven Sent and Hell Bent have different number.  LetsPlay Nintendo ITA  18:48, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not usually how it works. They have different narratives and different titles, but are still one whole story. If they are one story as a whole they are usually only granted one numbering but with "a" and "b" (and so on if more) written. --DCLM ☎  18:56, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like Wikipedia got it wrong. There were several attempts at story numberings via RfC, but they ended up not changing from what they currently have. I'd love to open the can of worms over there, but not without a strong backing of support. Since the story numberings are, essentially, independent, I'm gonna just shrug and move on. - UtherSRG ☎  19:07, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * This matter is the subject of a four-year-strong discussion at Thread:183627, concerning numbering and defining two-parters. (This was my own suggestion in 2016, incidentally, which would count these stories as multi-parters through a clean application of four simple rules, but no conclusion has as of yet been reached.) If you'd like to contribute, the place for discussion is in that thread, as this concerns (far) more than just this one page. 19:41, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - UtherSRG ☎  21:14, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I closed that thread because it had gotten very long and was as far as ever from agreement. It's still an issue that needs addressing, however. Shambala108 ☎  02:30, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

Technology
Is it identified as an iPhone, or is the branding not mentioned, so should be listed just as a mobile phone? - UtherSRG ☎  19:14, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * The Apple logo is clearly visible, and we've seen multiple examples of iPhones in past stories (and been given the name for them). There is a line, of course, in terms of specificity, that must be drawn where potential real world creep comes in, but generally speaking you don't need a character to point out that an object is called a floor lamp to identify it as such when it is clearly so. 19:20, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and it's why I asked. - UtherSRG ☎  21:26, January 3, 2020 (UTC)