Talk:Cold Fusion (novel)

Recent edits

Ohwrotcod has removed a large amount of material from this article, some of which I added in response to his/her AfD. His/her latest edit summary being, "all that information is unsourced OR. The words "Cold Fusion" are never listed in the source given". I have reverted that change. To go through the material removed in detail...

Synopsis: this does not give a citation, but comes from the novel itself. I see no reason for its removal.

"The story deliberately contrasts the fifth Doctors and the characterisation of the seventh Doctors in the Virgin New Adventures." and "Names in the book are very similar to those of the main characters (and the actors) in the BBC comedy Terry and June, so the book includes a Medford, a Whitfield, a Scott, and a Terry and June." Ohwrotcod has tagged both of these as not in citation given. The relevant text is: "FTN: And of course you did one of the few multi Doctor novels. Why did you pick the fifth and seventh Doctors? LP: They represented the starkest contrast, I think – a young, fresh Doctor versus a cynical, seasoned one." This is clearly a reference to this book. Parkin's answer continues: "I also wanted to crash the styles together, so you've got this fifth Doctor aesthetic of guest stars, eighties eye makeup and small brightly-lit sets (Terry and June are in it, so are Adam and the Ants)"

"The book was originally meant to be published in the same month as the New Adventure So Vile a Sin, but the latter's delay meant that did not happen." No citation is given for this. I have left this material out.

"The Ferutu would appear again in the final Virgin New Adventures novel Twilight of the Gods. Their appearance resembles the Time Lord who appears at the beginning of the serial Genesis of the Daleks." No citation is given for this. I have left this material out.

"Cold Fusion includes many references to the Cartmel Masterplan which would be more fully explored in Lungbarrow. More is learned about the character of Patience in the BBC Past Doctor Adventures novel The Infinity Doctors, also by Lance Parkin. It is suggested that she is the Doctor's (or possibly The Other's) wife, but how she fits into normal continuity is deliberately not revealed." Ohwrotcod has edited this down and labelled it WP:SYNTH. The source given supports the text and specifically mentions Cold Fusion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Very simply.

1)None of the material I removed was sourced. See WP:BURDEN

2)Please tell me exactly where the term Cold Fusion appears in the source you keep insisting is relevant. If you can not then it is not in the source given. Ohwrotcod (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(1) I have given a detailed explanation above. (2) The FTN interview with Parkin refers to a novel featuring the 5th and 7th Doctor, Tegan, Adric etc. It is clearly a reference to this novel. Even if you are not familiar with the novel text, you can see from this article that this is clearly the novel under discussion in the interview. Bondegezou (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it clearly a reference to the novel? See WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. It doesn't mention Cold Fusion by name, there is no way of verifying what it is about using Wikipedia Policies. Therefore it has to go. Ohwrotcod (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is an interview with Parkin about his Dr Who novels. In that, they refer to a "multi-Doctor" novel featuring the 5th and 7th Doctor. They then discuss the contents of the book. There is only one Dr Who novel featuring the 5th and 7th Doctor and it's this one, and its contents entirely correspond with the discussion in the interview. Its identification is not OR or SYNTHESIS, it seems like WP:COMMONSENSE to me, and to StuartDouglas (I hazard). Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that yes, I thought this was commonsense and - for a user whose username is Doctor Who backwards - would have expected it to be pretty clear. But I also wasn't sure if commonsense was a legitimate Wikipedia concept and so one which could be employed here? StuartDouglas (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, you keep reverting multiple changes, but your discussion here has focused on the FTN interview. Can you explain your other changes please? Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to state it is about the book. As it does not mention the book by name, it requires someone requiring WP:SYNTHESIS to understand it. Had the source actually stated the name of the book they are taking about it would be usable. But only someone who has read the book and knows the plot details would have any idea what they are discussing. This is not a Doctor Who wiki, it is Wikipedia, and the average user would most likely not make the connection. Ohwrotcod (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." [from WP:COMMONSENSE). StuartDouglas (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Reliable Sources

Just wondering - what actually counts as reliable source for Dr Who? For instance, is the DW Ratings Guide reliable in terms of Wikipedia? Or Timelash? Is a review on sfsignal, scifibulletin.com or some similar site worth adding? StuartDouglas (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What counts as a reliable source for Dr Who should be the same as what counts for any article: see WP:RS. However, there are certainly many grey areas and uncertain cases. I would be uneasy about DW Ratings Guide or Timelash, but happier about the likes of scifibulletin. But that's just me; others may disagree. I suggest you be bold and add whatever you think is reliable, and other editors can respond if they wish to question. Or ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Is the summary actually copied from this review from 1999? http://www.pagefillers.com/dwrg/coldf.htm#2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.245.21.8 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)