Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Re:no additional sites added without discussion on the talk page

In relation to the hidden text additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted we have actually lost a number of sites since the great purge attempt last June [1] .They may well have been removed for a good reason but there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the talk pages to remove them and apparently if I try to re-insert them they might be reverted on the basis of additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted.

Just a point I thought should be brought up . Garda40 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what sites do you want to insert? --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Or reinsert? Klippa (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I inset www.drwhofigures.co.uk? Lumic (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (GMT)

That link would seem to fall foul of [2], Section 5, so my opinion is that it's an inappropriate link. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That's a store site. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As a French fan and french contributor (Gyld on the French Wikipedia), I suggest to add a french site about the show, Beans on Toast (h[ttp://www.doctor-who.fr/]). You can search, this site is cited in the website of David Tennant ([3]). I think that can show how Doctor Who is know in France, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.123.198 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain Jack's Reprise / Sarah Janes return?

In the intro "John Barrowman will be filming for the show after Christmas 2007, reprising his role as Captain Jack Harkness". Can he possibly be reprising his role, given that he must have been playing it almost without a break since the beginning of 2005? Klippa (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• His involvement in series 4 has been confirmed in multiple media. 23skidoo (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think he's saying that the wrong word has been used. To be honest, I can't think of a better phrase to use myself. StuartDD _{contributions} 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Continuing"? Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sound's good. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was writing a bit obliquely. Sorry. Yes. I just meant that he's not really reprising the role if he's played it in 26 episodes of Torchwood and 8 episodes of Doctor Who in about 36 months. I should've made a suggestion myself, but, yes, 'continuing' resolves my concern. Klippa (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; I misunderstood your question. 23skidoo (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think "reprising" sounds better - but what is the purpose of all this "latest production info" stuff anyway? Isn't this paragraph just meant to say who is currently in the TARDIS - in which case it would be better to just dump everything after "Catherine Tate is due to reprise her role of Donna Noble in the new series"? We certainly haven't kept, for example, a note that Liz Sladen was a guest star in S2 episode School reunion, as she's apparently going to be for one episode of S4. 81.109.71.38 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the paragraph has maybe got too long, especially now that someone's just added that "Sarah in Series 4" bit. We could just go with mentioning Donna. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those who see this not as a reprise but a continuous role. Reprise generally suggests a role is resumed after a period of time, but Barrowman has played the role continuously since Torchwood's debut. The Sarah S4 thing is a hoax according to one editor; not sure how that might figure into the discussion. (Hope I will be forgiven for changing the heading - reprisal is like retaliation and it just seemed wrong!)Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, yes i checked the source on Liz Sladen "confirmed" appearence in S4. Unfortuantly it was a clear hoax from an unoffical website. I checked the BBC's website and could not find any new source. So i assume its not comfirmed at all that Sarah Jane is returning to Doctor Who. TheProf07 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by an interview in with Lis Sladen in SFX magazine. A very well respected sci-fi magazine, it's not a hoax. GracieLizzie (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This still reads as more speculative than confirmed. I read the piece cited, and it's a "coming up" piece on the new issue, focused on Sladen's own series, with only an indirect reference to a Doctor Who episode. Not exactly solid confirmation. Until the actual interview is published and a direct quote from Sladen can be cited, I don't think this belongs in the article. Drmargi (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes good sense, per WP:CRYSTAL. Why can't we wait for an official announcement anyway? WP is not a news service. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits and suggested there be a discussion to consensus herein. Clearly there is some need for caution. Drmargi (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see what Sarah Jane actually said, but I don't think this is a hoax. StuartDD _{contributions} 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that we can no longer fairly call it a hoax, which was reasonable at one time. But it still needs better confirmation than what is available thusfar. Drmargi (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see that interview in full. Maybe "Hoax" is a harsh word. However, its still very vague whats being said and it strikes me that her appearance will ultimatly just be a cameo. TheProf07 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In your defense, I think hoax was a reasonable conclusion at the time you drew it, and appropriately supported by the evidence provided. Now, we have the benefit of a second, albeit sketchy, source that demands a bit more guarded language. Drmargi (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was 'Hoax' that made me act defensively. Because SFX are well respected. --GracieLizzie (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

sarah jane is definately coming back.i have seen her in the clips for the series. she's definately in episode twelve, i'm not sure about episode thirteen of series 4. it's definately not a hoax. all the surviving characters of torchwood, i.e gwen cooper and ianto jones along with captain jack will also be in the episode.i've never added anything before so forgive me if i haven't done it right. (rebecca) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.112.171 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Viewership section

"The all-time highest chart placing for an episode of Doctor Who is fifth, for episode two of The Ark in Space in 1975." I would guess that's now out-of-date and Voyage of the Damned has beaten it. Is there confirmation anywhere though? Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think final figures are due in the next few days - modern audience data includes "timeshifted viewers" (i.e. those who record and watch later) and this takes some time to add to the figures. The "overnight results" don't factor this in and can confuse (although the shows that tend to lose viewer between the overnights & finals are things like news bulletins and the lottery results where very few people record to watch later). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not in favor of separating the so-called "classic" series and the "revived" series (as far as I'm concerned they're one show with a 16-year hiatus between seasons), in this case I do think it's prudent to handle the ratings separately between the two eras. The way ratings are measured, and the way audiences viewed the show in 2007 is nothing like the way they viewed the show in 1975. 23skidoo (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox - drama?

In the infobox, for "format" it says Drama. Wouldn't Melodrama be more accurate? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever heard DW described as a melodrama. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's not the most obvious description. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was described as such by Philip Hinchcliffe on a DVD commentary - Talons of Weng Chiang I think, but I'll check that. The focus on actions and events at the expense of character development is a characteristic of melodrama though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great respec' to Mr Hinchliffe, but I doubt if one commentary on one episode doth a definition make. Besides, for such a long-lasting series, I'd argue that character development for the major characters is more slow-burning and somewhat limited in any case. After all, we get a good idea of each of the companions, say, from their first appearances, and their character development takes place across the series arcs against the background of the action. Meanwhile, signing your posts reduces annoying edit conflicts. Cheers --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops re signing, I seem to be having a bad day for it! Shall we agree to leaving off the "melodrama" discussion unless a good ref for it comes up? Otherwise it's the dreaded Original Research if we go by our own impressions. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Hoax?

TheProf07 why do you think this is a hoax? it is an interview with Elisabeth Sladen herself in a respected Sci-Fi magazine. --GracieLizzie (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look over on the doctorwhoforum.com some posters in the set reports thread have posted pictures of liz filming for the doctor who finale. althought not from an official source it clearly shows this not to be a 'hoax' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.111.211 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoax it may not be, but as yet, it lacks a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Spinoffs

Should the spinoffs section on this page list spinoffs that never got off the drawing board? There seem to be quite a few things here that didn't get beyond concept art, or from the mind of RTD. Would these aborted spinoffs not be better on the dedicated DW Spinoffs page and only list the stuff on this one that actually made it to our screen, or is about to? Mmm commentaries (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User Ckatz( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Ckatz ) repeatedly deleted a source reference link pertaining to the last paragraph of the spinoff section. This relates to the proposed Young Dr Who series. As users are encouraged to provide references to back up their contributions I do not understand this behaviour on behalf of Ckatz. The contributor has now been banned by Ckatz. I raise this matter in the hope that whomsoever runs this site can remedy the situation. I have restored the reference and await a decision by admin. If I'm not banned myself ofcourse. Hence a speedy response would be much appreciated. Siliconshrew (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But a source has to be reliable. The Daily Mirror is not regarded as a reliable source. Until this comes from the BBC or someone who has a reputation for checking its sources, this is rumour and cannot be in the article. Feel free to use it in a blog somewhere, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is even worse is a US website, www.youngdrwho.com, operating from Colorado, pretending to be a British newspaper whose web address, www.mirror.co.uk, operates from Birmingham. Anyone else putting this information back in does it at their own risk. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. I fail to see how you can call the Daily Mirror unreliable in this context. Its not a story about tap dancing hamsters. Its a straight story straight from the BBC offices front desk. Besides, I used to live in England and the Daily Mirror is far more reliable than Wikipedia. Banning doesn't scare me. If this is how you run the place then why would anyone be bothered by such a threat. The short link to the site is unimportant. We can use the Daily Mirror html if thats a big problem. Siliconshrew (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not. In that article, they refer to Russell Davies as "Queer as Polk producer" (sic); so it's clear they can't even be bothered to check their copy. That's why they are not regarded as reliable. Source it elsewhere, if you can. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had a more comprehensively detailed source I would have used it. As this is the only source I thought it would be even more important to include it. A short scene of Dr Who as a child on Gallifrey did appear in the last episodes of series 7 and that does suggest the idea was being kicked around at the BBC. I realise that isn't conclusive but there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this newspaper article. It is not a wild ghost story or ufo abduction tale. Its a simple entertainment piece. Siliconshrew (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the nature of the publication itself that makes it so questionable. Tabloids don't check sources well, as documented above, and are not above making things up. That you can't find another, reliable source, tends to give credence to the notion this link you're so determined to place in the article (one wonders why) is not reliable. And consequently, I've reverted you again. Why on earth would an url for Young Doctor Who display as The Mirror if this were legitimate? The Mirror story is phony, beginning to end, as is the website, which is what others have attempted to explain. Drmargi 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You might do well at this point to review the Three-Revert Rule. Drmargi 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Siliconshrew: As far as I can tell, you are referring to the user "Seekerbot". That user has been blocked (not "banned", which is quite different) because of a history of vandalism. A second administrator also added that the name is a violation of Wikipedia's user name policy. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a couple of links to other Daily Mirror website pages which list the article as part of a "Russel T Davies" or "Dr Who" internal search. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tags/russell-t-davies/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/tags/dr-who/ The site is genuine. As I've attempted to explain. Siliconshrew (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The links don't validate the information, which still is considered to be from an unreliable source. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By whom? The elite here? Admins seem to have the final say on absolutely everything. Talk about caretakers on a power trip! I thought this was the encyclopedia that anyone could edit. I guess that's just hype. What it should read is "the encyclopedia that nobody can edit but admins". Admins being anybody who lurks around the place a few months (without anything better to do) correcting easy spelling mistakes and gleefully reporting newcomers for any one of ten thousand vague rule breaches. Coveting the day when they will have enough barnstars to lord it over the mere mortals tapping away. No wonder Wikipedia is now a staple source of mirth for stand up comedy acts. Perhaps if you didn't abuse everyone who walked through the door you wouldn't have so many people "vandalising" the place. So newspapers are unreliable and websites are all fake. Its a miracle anything ever gets approved here. Even if I had a letter from the BBC and scanned it you would just say its a fake. Siliconshrew (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No. No. Policy, experience and consensus decide what is a reliable source. I suggest you get used to that and stop whinging because you can't get your own way. Consensus is against you. End of argument. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While Siliconshrew's comments do reflect what I think is an increasing frustration with admins claiming dominion over edits without feeling the need to offer explanation - as if their word alone is golden - which is a frustration I can't help but share.... I have to say, about this particular issue - it's the Daily Effin' Mirror! Nobody on the planet thinks that's a reliable source. Get over it. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who aborted spin-offs are already documanted here and adding them elsewhere would be superfluous, and it would be more appropriate to link to that section if it's really needed at all. Re: The Young Doctor Who debate, are you effen kidding me? Siliconshrew, you surely are feckless. The Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, it is a tabloid. Moreover, if a source such as that--something that would be a rather large story--can only be found at one place, it's most likely to be rubbish. - \\Aeron\\talk 03:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Siliconshrew, administrators don't "have the final say on absolutely everything" - every editor does, through the consensus process. Admins are the ones who are then tasked with ensuring that the consensus is maintained. If the majority of editors here agreed that the Mirror was reliable enough to validate this story, admins (myself included) would be expected to deal with editors who try to remove the reference. That is not the case here, however, as consensus seems to be pretty heavily in opposition to including the Mirror text. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God! You use majority consensus to make important decisions! That's a recipe for disaster. Explains quite a lot actually. Think about it. Uninformed votes from ignorant people (which most of the public indeed are) can only lead to contradicting passages and fairness will go out the window. Look at the Israel page for example. Anything derogatory about the history of this new nation gets argued out by the jews patrolling the page. Truth means nothing. In fact the jews would appreciate the logic of my argument. Forty million germans can't be wrong, right? Majority decisions aren't decisions at all. It's like asking the passengers on the QE2 to take over the running of the ship. The ship would probably perish. Like asking the public to vote on a new tax. Ofcourse they'll vote against it even if the extra revenue is vital to the nation. Now I read here that a few self proclaimed leaders here don't like the Daily Mirror newspaper. They also claim the site is a fake. Where is the evidence? There is nothing to black these wild paranoid claims. I'm going to help out here and call a friend of mine at the BBC. She should be able to track down the truth. By the way, is it true that a bunch of admins here destroyed a page on Bindi Irwin because "she isn't famous". Ignorance is the only sin. Darthdracula (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful Darth. People mysteriously vanish around here for saying less than that. You haven't said anything new. Look around the place and you'll find tons of dead profiles with messages left behind cursing the admins and wikipedia in general for the exact reasons you've outlined. You might as well be talking to a brick wall. These people are hardcore fanatics who spend way too much time here. Nothing you say will make a dent in their psyche. Better to move on and forget about this failed experiment. Gremlinoid (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SiliconShrew is a sockpuppet of the banned user Universe Daily. You can safely ignore him. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily for more info. MER-C 11:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Episodes

If you count the TVM as an episode. Which as it was only for TV, it is! You get 739 episodes (as of 25th December 2007) not 738! This needs to be fixed at once. I tried to put the correct information onto the article. But another editor removed it! TheProf | 2007 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is 738, honest! Check out List of Doctor Who serials. Are you including The Infinite Quest? Or Time Crash? None of those count. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, i'm not counting any Comic Releaf or Children in Need specials. Also, i'm not counting Shada. But i have a list right in front of me and with the TVM (TV Movie), its 739. I would post the list ive got, but i would need a whole page! Thanks TheProf | 2007 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I think its 738 in the article because no one is counting the TVM! I suggest that we do count the TVM as Russell T Davies himself considers it 'canon'. Thanks TheProf | 2007 12:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So are "Time Crash" and "Pudsey Cutaway", doesn't mean they are included when counting the episodes. --GracieLizzie (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

GracieLizzie, that makes no sense! TVM, Time Crash and Pudsey Cutaway are canon but should'nt be counted!? Care to explain? TheProf | 2007 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added them up before, and got 738 including TVM as 1 episodes - which is why I put it back to 738. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well i added them up before and got 739 including the TVM. 738 without the TVM! The article List of Doctor Who serials agrees with me! In there it says 738 episodes and one TV movie. TheProf | 2007 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says 738 including one TV movie.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i rechecked my list (about 6 times!) and yes, as i thought, i had counted an episode twice! Making me one episode ahead of the wikipedia list. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. On another note; GracieLizzie pointed out earlier that Pudsey Cutaway and Time Crash are not counted on the list. Are they really considered 'canon'? If so, should they be placed on the list? Again sorry and thanks TheProf | 2007 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They are considered canon but they are miniepisodes. I don't think they are generally considered long enough to be episodes. At least, that was the impression I got. --GracieLizzie (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Show sub-pages.

I'm sure this has been discussed over and over, but I think there needs to be an "original series" page and a "new series" page. Leave this one as the "franchise" page, but have two subpages for the seperate shows.

Yes, one is a continuation of the other, but there are enough differences to at least have a place to link to when discussing specifics.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the page should stay as it is. After all, it still is Doctor Who. 203.192.85.33 (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Original episode

I was wondering if anyone else could confirm something I heard many years ago while living in England. It was rumoured that the first episode of Dr Who had a tragically low number of viewers due to the assassination of JFK the day before in Texas. This resulted in the episode being redone the following week. This also caused a few concerns due to the fact that the episode was done live and had to be recreated as best as possible the following saturday. Can anyone confirm this as I have been unable to track down this in any other forum.

Britlost (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Britlost

It wasn't done live. However, there's a bit of truth to the JFK assassination story. See An Unearthly Child, particularly the section on Broadcast and Release. DonQuixote (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The episode was repeated the following week - though I've read somewhere that this was due to a power failure and not due to the JFK assassination. It was not done live (that's one of the myths given on the BBC page) and according to tardis wiki the first episode was watched by over 4 million. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)