Talk:79B Aickman Road/Archive 1

Appearance
Sigh...since go one else will bother to go here to file their complaint as according to the site policy, I will, because I respect the rules. The information is coincidental. Why is it up there? -- Bold  Clone  22:05, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems just like continuity. There are some bits of continuity on pages that state person X did thing Y is similar to what they did in situation Z. There is no need to remove it, it's not speculation, like you said it's coincidental - so what? - because it is coincidental, there's nothing wrong with adding it to the Behind the scenes section - it's worthy of one. Unless you want to remove all 'coincidental' information removed from this wiki, just like you want every single thing that could be speculation? Mini-mitch\talk 22:10, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuity is different; you're using a false analogy. Regardless, I don't see the point of saying "this guy did this, similar to how that guy did that." I don't see why you have to point out that two incidents or objects are similar, unless they are related. If they are related, then you have a reason to point out the similarity. If they aren't related, then it's just coincidence and of no value whatsoever to the page or the wiki. I don't see why the specific info on this page should have been added in the first place. There's nothing wrong with taking it off the BTS section, because it never belonged there anyway. -- Bold  Clone  22:18, February 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * It does belong there. Anything that is noteworthy should go there. And this is noteworthy, and several User have also noticed this and discussed it, and hence the reason it was added. Mini-mitch\talk 22:21, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not noteworthy! Just because the two are similar does not make it noteworthy! What makes it noteworthy is if the similarity is because of a relationship between the two! Did you even read what I said? "I don't see why you have to point out that two incidents or objects are similar, unless they are related. If they are related, then you have a reason to point out the similarity. If they aren't related, then it's just coincidence and of no value whatsoever to the page or the wiki." -- Bold  Clone  22:25, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * If there were similar, they would go under the heading See also. Mini-mitch\talk 22:29, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * And they aren't similar, which is my point! If they were similar, then you would have a reason to mention it. However, since there is no connection between the two ships, why are you pointing it out? What is it about an unrelated similarity that makes you want to mention it, when there is no advantange or practical point for the page? -- Bold  Clone  22:37, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually BoldClone... Your arguement was that they're not related... But I do see where you both are coming from. You're pretty much saying that since it was not addressed in the show and/or confidential/behind th scenes... It shouldn't be put on the wiki or atleast the page... But in mini-mitch's case.... He's just pointing out something similar... And I do agree with those of you in the wiki that think the Jagaroth ship and the Aickman road ship look similar... They do! And I do believe that what mini-mich was saying was right... There are many articles on the wiki that do have parts that say somethig along the lines of "So-and-so did this in this episode kinda like how 'Bob' did in another episode..." or "X looks a lot like Y from the episode: " But don't fight over this... How about we just hold a vote or something? People could decide if they want to have that up on the page or not....? Just an idea? TheTARDIScontroller 01:17, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct; in my last reply, I should have said "they aren't related," instead of "they aren't similar." They are similar, I just don't believe that the similarity is worth noting. -- Bold  Clone  02:21, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * But why isn't it worth noting though... If you look at other pages, they have a "See Also" page or something like that. Why not just put a "similar to" header or something like that on the page? TheTARDIScontroller 04:12, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...because it is completely irrelevant and worthless to have on the article? Seriously, the similarity is unrelated, and if it doesn't deserve a mention on the BTS section, then it shouldn't need to have an entire section for it. -- Bold  Clone  04:24, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I just actually found some proof of the point that it should be put on. In the page for the Adventure game "TARDIS", on the references section... it said the following (or something very close to it) "The Entity said "I must feed" this is similar to what an Ood said in The Impossible Planet"... See, similar! TheTARDIScontroller 04:47, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...no. That does not prove anything. The only thing it does is show that other pages have the same problem. Just becuase two things are similar does not mean that the similarity is important. What you cited does not refute me. -- Bold  Clone  19:40, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I just actually found some proof of the point that it should be put on. In the page for the Adventure game "TARDIS", on the references section... it said the following (or something very close to it) "The Entity said "I must feed" this is similar to what an Ood said in The Impossible Planet"... See, similar! TheTARDIScontroller 04:47, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...no. That does not prove anything. The only thing it does is show that other pages have the same problem. Just becuase two things are similar does not mean that the similarity is important. What you cited does not refute me. -- Bold  Clone  19:40, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...no. That does not prove anything. The only thing it does is show that other pages have the same problem. Just becuase two things are similar does not mean that the similarity is important. What you cited does not refute me. -- Bold  Clone  19:40, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

What the fuss is about
When I encounterd this page, the above users were talking about a certain line that was in the behind the scenes section. After some digging in the history, I discovered the line was:
 * Some fans have noticed that Number 79B, Aickman Road has a similar external appearance to the Jagaroth ship from TV: City of Death.

Please do not place this line back in the text until the matter is resolved here.

This line should go back in the article

 * 1) --Mini-mitch\talk 22:39, February 4, 2011 (UTC) - It's noteworthy, but I'll with go with the decision of the wiki. But please don't let this turn out to be another Howling Halls and don't start a 'Coincidental information policy' either.

This line should not go back in the article

 * 1) . It's really mere coincidence. So what if the shape is similar. Now, if you can find a behind-the-scenes person remarking on its similarity to the Jagaroth ship, fine, that's relevant. But for an editor to comment on its similarity is a rather weak reason to include it in a BTS note.
 * 2) It's similar, but not related. The information is not noteworthy, and there was no real practical or beneficial reason to have even put it in the article in the first place. -- Bold  Clone  22:38, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) It not even true. Just because it has legs doesn't mean its automatically the consensus that it has the same design.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:48, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Name
Why are we going with such an antiquated British (that is, not even modern British) way of rendering this topic's name? What's the possible rationale for "Number 79B, Aickman Road" instead of just "79B Aickman Road", when the most famous British street address in the whole of the DWU is 13 Bannerman Road? Shouldn't we be using the same format for the same kind of article? It'll doubtless be confusing to readers to use "Number" and a comma in one instance, but not in another.


 * I agree, I never noticed it before but it does seem silly. --Revan\Talk 19:10, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Renaming it 79B Aickman Road seems like a more logical name. Mini-mitch\talk 19:16, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Bold  Clone  00:36, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Done.Skittles the hog-- Talk 10:15, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Interior

The interior looks like the interior of the ship in "the impossible astronought"

Interior
The interior looks like the interior of the ship in "the impossible astronout" 

I added a picture Dark3000light 18:16, April 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, it does ;) —Scott http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32971/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (contact) 23:21, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Continuity, origin, etc
After the last two episodes - The Impossible Astronaut and Day of the Moon - it is apparent that this ship is much more than a one-off. The page should be updated to reflect its usage by The Silence, and presumably to speculate on: I believe that the only reason the page was locked was because of the ongoing dispute over the line about City of Death, but I could be wrong. Either way, it should be unlocked or at least updated: it doesn't even mention the new season!
 * 1) Whether the Silence built it
 * 2) Why the ship at 79B Aickman Road was abandoned
 * 3) How the Silence built it: they're parasites, remember? If a parasite has a faux-TARDIS...
 * 4) If there is more than one
 * 5) How/why it ended up as part of a secret Floridian tunnel network instead of inside of said network (most likely a minor plot device, of course, but who knows!)
 * 6) Etc.

Also, to Dark3000Light and Scott, The Doctor confirmed in The Day of the Moon that it is the same ship, when he first saw its interior. PhilipSnowman 06:26, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

The Silence Ship
The behind the scenes statement saying that the connection between the silence is still not confirmed etc is ridiculous. The doctor has confirmed itself and the main reason the silence where operating it. Can this WHOLE article now not be changed as if it is the Silences spaceship. -- Michael Downey 12:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

yeah i've noticed the simularity between the Proto tardis in the lodger and a similar thing in the warehouse in the episode, The Impossible AstronautSclera1 13:46, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, both the Doctor and Moffat (in one of the Confidentials) pretty much confirmed they're the exact same ship at different points in its history. The Doctor mentioned how it was abandoned the last time he saw it, and he was about to find out why, followed by the Silents being killed. What was the case in The Lodger? The crew were dead, and the corpse on the floor had four fingers. When River killed the Silents, they fell to the floor in the same position. The fact that the ship was trying to leave Earth hikes to the fact that humanity turned on the Silence.

I heard that in one of the Confidentials, Moffat said its appearance in the opening two-parter is the backstory explanation of its role in The Lodger, and that it's the Silent's ship and they created it. 90.199.247.141 14:28, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Its true, I just watched confidential on iplayer and it is stated that it is the same ship 78.105.95.95 15:20, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Problem, I doubt certain editors will accept that until they see Confideitnail themselves, or they will just say, "until specified on-screen, blah, blah, blah..." Not directed at anyone individually, but there afew a few people like that, who don't accept the words of the production or writers. 90.199.247.156 05:32, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * But the doctor himself also in the episode says it. 78.105.95.95 11:41, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Or you could add the info yourself, instead of telling us to do it...-- Bold  Clone  15:17, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Its protected 10.7.11.54 16:35, May 4, 2011 (UTC)