Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2660c7269b0a9fe

Jump to content

Talk:The Space Museum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Redrose64 in topic Release dates
Good articleThe Space Museum has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Space Museum is part of the Doctor Who season 2 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2022Good article nomineeListed
March 17, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 17, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that before writing The Space Museum, Glyn Jones had never seen Doctor Who?
Current status: Good article

Tricky grammar

[edit]

"Richard Shaw, who spoke with a Cockney accent, was cast as Governor Lobos and asked to deliver his lines with a BBC accent instead."

From this formulation, was Shaw asked to used a BBC accent or did Shaw request that he play Lobos with a BBC accent? There's no way to know. Now, if we go with the more awkward construction of:

"Richard Shaw... was cast as Governor Lobos and was asked...."

then it is clear that the decision was not his.

-- Proteus71 Sept 15 2005 17:40 GMT

Fair use rationale for Image:The Space Museum2.png

[edit]

Image:The Space Museum2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Space Museum. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by Rhain (talk). Self-nominated at 05:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC).Reply

  • Hi Rhain, review follows: article promoted to GA on 10 January; exceeds minimum length and is well written; sources used look to be reliable and are mainly offline; I found no overly close paraphrasing from a check on online sources, AGF on the offline ones; hook s are interesting and mentioned in the article, AGF on offline sourcing; ALT2 might perhaps be improved by mentioning Hartnell was on holiday but happy to leave that up to the promoter; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me; you're doing some great work on these early Dr Who serials, keep it up! - Dumelow (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Promoting the main hook to Prep 4Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

35mm?

[edit]

really?

seems a bit unlikely...

duncanrmi (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Duncanrmi: Care to elaborate? – Rhain 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
sure. a quick glance at the main dr who article suggests that budgets were extremely tight for this show, & it was sometimes aired live. the show was recorded on monochrome 2" videotape when it was going to be edited afterwards, but if this was archived at all (& often, infamously, it wasn't), it would have been on 16mm.
almost certainly there was no 35mm during studio production or archiving of this show, though imdb asserts that some vfx shots were 35mm.
duncanrmi (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Duncanrmi: Yes, the model shots were filmed on 35 mm. No, the show was never aired live. – Rhain 22:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Release dates

[edit]

This article says the serial first aired from 24 April to 15 May 1965. However, the official Doctor Who website states that it aired from 8 May to 29 May 1965. There's no source in the article, so maybe it should be changed to what doctorwho.tv says. Spectritus (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Apparently, it's a mistake on doctorwho.tv. Spectritus (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Definitely appears to be the case—and, to clarify, there is a source in the article. Rhain (he/him) 11:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sources are so easy to find:
  • Cornell, Paul; Day, Martin; Topping, Keith (1995). Doctor Who: The Discontinuity Guide. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 37. ISBN 0-426-20442-5. 24 April 1965 – 15 May 1965
  • Haining, Peter (November 1988). Doctor Who: 25 Glorious Years. London: W.H. Allen. p. 211. ISBN 1-85227-021-7. Screened: 24 April–15 May 1965
  • Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James (1994). Doctor Who The Handbook - The First Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 97. ISBN 0-426-20430-1. 24.04.65 01.05.65 08.05.65 15.05.65
  • Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1998). Doctor Who: The Television Companion. London: BBC Worldwide. p. 53. ISBN 0-563-40588-0. 24/04/65 01/05/65 08/05/65 15/05/65
  • Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 1: The Programmes. London: Target Books. p. 27. ISBN 0-426-20139-6. 24 April 1965 to 15 May 1965
  • Richards, Justin (2005) [2003]. Doctor Who: The Legend Continues - 5 decades of time travel (revised ed.). London: BBC Books. p. 50. ISBN 0-563-48640-6. First broadcast 24 April–15 May 1965
I see complete agreement with our article text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply