Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Dr. versus Doctor

The main article suggests that purists consider the "Dr." version to be incorrect. While I'm not claiming that some people don't think that; this belief is based upon pure and utter nonsense. Even the very first episode's credits spell the character's name as "Dr. Who". While there are obviously inconsistensies in the series, I believe that this is a non-issue and detracts from the article's quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimlhûg (talk • contribs)

What we note here is that the character's name is the Doctor. Dr. Who would be a mistaken name. Wiki-newbie 19:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly true, Wiki-newbie. There are two related but distinct questions: what is the name of the programme, and what is the name of its protagonist. The latter question has been addressed inconsistently over the 43 years since the show was conceived, and is addressed at Doctor (Doctor Who)#"Doctor who?". Nimlhûg was asking about the former. The question is whether it's correct to abbreviate the name of the programme as "Dr. Who". And although many fans balk at it, I believe the earliest Radio Times listings gave the show's title as "Dr. Who", and there's plenty of internal BBC documentation using that title. It gets up my back as well, but Nimlhûg does have a point — we might be better off removing that sentence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You believe correctly: Radio Times listings for Serial A. Angmering 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the sentence initially and who disagrees completely with its removal, all I have to say is it's a matter of time before someone decides to move this article to "Dr. Who". There are plenty of online and printed sources to indicate that Dr. Who is an incorrect usage, both by the TV Times and others, usually indicating a lack of knowledge regarding the series itself. It simply must be acknowledged -- if not in the introduction, then we must create a section discussing the different uses of the title. 23skidoo 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If so, please find these references. The only reference we have suggests the opposite. Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That the programme's name is "Doctor Who" is not in question. If someone tried to move it to "Dr. Who", they'd be wrong, and the page would be moved back. The question is whether we need to say that in the article. I'm not sure why it's noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan sites

I wonder if the heading "fan sites" should be removed as it acts as a beacon for every man and his dog to add their own blog... Tim! 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Percy Snoodle 12:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And put in an "invisible comment/warning" to not add the section back in again, 'cause it'll be removed. Like...

<!-- Please do not add fansites to this page, they will be removed. See the discussion page of this article as to reasonings why, and to make comments on this issue, before making changes. -->

Or words to that effect. :) --Ebyabe 12:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding <nowiki> tags to Ebayabe's comment so it could be read easily. I hope that's not a breach of etiquette.

Putting in such a comment seems like a good idea, but probably won't work because there's no set place to put in fan-site links. Those comments work best if they reference existing text at a fixed location rather than text someone might add pretty much anywhere.

Maybe change the section to "Major fan sites" or the like and include a comment that minor sites will be deleted as a compromise.--Suttkus 15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's a verifiable way of deciding which are "Major fan sites", they should all go. Spammers will add them back in, but it's fairly easy to keep an article clean if it starts off clean. Percy Snoodle 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There were similar issues with the Sailor Moon page and while at the time I was a defender of certain websites, I think the solution they came up with at the time was a good one. Link a directory, and remove all other fansites. I propose we just link the Doctor Who Web Guide and leave it at that. (And perhaps the TARDIS Index File the way Sailor Moon links Project WikiMoon and Star Trek links Memory Alpha. --GracieLizzie 17:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that the Doctor Who Web Guide is no longer updating, which may prove problematic in future. In past, it's been fairly simple to keep Outpost Gallifrey as the only fan site: its content was head and shoulders above all other sites, had a much higher Alexa ranking than any other Doctor Who fan site, and its forum had established connections with many Doctor Who writers and professionals. But now OG isn't being updated any more either; its forum is still a going concern, but without the comprehensive News Page I think that the site as a whole loses a bit of its standing as "the go-to source for Doctor Who information". Hmm... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

With the webguide now back in operation (as well as the rest of OG itself), is it worth looking again at this issue? The links section on this page gets ever longer as more website owners discover it and add their own sites. --The Missing Hour 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call — I think I'll replace the "fan sites" section with a link to the Web Guide at its new location on OG. (We could probably afford to lose a few more links too, but I'll have to give it some thought before I start pruning.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realise that the Web Guide was already there — given that, I just removed the "fan sites" section altogether. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some of the links that stray from the External Links style guide. All removed links are already indexed in the Dr Who Web Guide. --The Missing Hour 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the miscellaneous/further links sections, as I don't think it's appropriate to have an unsorted links bin on the article. Unless the person who adds the link can convincingly argue why the page needs yet another fansite, it shouldn't go in at all. A bin for unsorted links just encourages further spamming. Percy Snoodle 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Though, rereading The Missing Hour's note to me, I see that he wanted the web guide at the bottom to dissuade them, so I've moved 'general information' down. I'm not entirely happy about that subsection, but I think having that at the bottom pleases the most people. Percy Snoodle 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Outpost gallifrey

Im so sorry if i deleted your post i did not read your posts and agree with you all i want them to put my site on[[1]]

I SAY DOWN WITH OUT POST GALIFREY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davors (talk • contribs) 19:02, October 28, 2006 (UTC)

1. Your site doesn't load

2. Please sign your talk page posts with for tildes (that is: ~~~~) or use the http://en.wiki.x.io/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png (above the edit text box: tenth from the right, third from the right) button. --GracieLizzie 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Davors" may have a touch of dyslexia: he typed "proboadrs" when I think he meant to type "proboards". I've fixed that, but the site in question is a non-notable forum with only 4 members, and clearly violates the guidelines at WP:EL, which say that "links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums" are generally to be avoided. OG was notable not because of its forum, but because of all the other resources the site provided (and still provides, although it is no longer being updated). Not a candidate for inclusion, I'm afraid. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you limit fansites to those that issue regular, up to date news? When I look for Doctor Who sites, thats what I want. Incidentally I had no idea that this was such a contentious issue when I suggested Kasterborous! 149.254.200.215 08:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Stuart Maxim

Absolutelly agree with the Doctor only. 'dr' is awful

Star Trek's homage to Doctor Who?

There have also been many references to Doctor Who in popular culture and other science fiction franchises, including Star Trek: The Next Generation ("The Neutral Zone", among others).

Does the Borg really count as an intended ref unto Doctor Who? DrWho42 03:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, so I'm going to go with a few alternatives. If you're saying that the Borg foreshadowing in The Neutral Zone doesn't count, you're right — it doesn't. The reference in The Neutral Zone was a list of the names of past Doctor actors on a screen.

If you're saying that the Borg (in and of themselves) should count, then we don't have hard evidence that they were intended to be a Doctor Who reference. We cover that to a degree in Cyberman. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I must have missed the part concerning the list. A pretty plusgood reference then since my presumption was that they were meaning the Borg foreshadowing which really doesn't qualify at all. DrWho42 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The article links to the episode in question but there is no explaination there nor any mention of Doctor Who at all. Surely it should mention this in the article? Otherwise why link to it or mention it at all if there is to be no explaination? AlanD 11:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was there but Morwen decided to remove it for some reason. I'd just put it back but perhaps it should be discussed? Here is the info that was removed:

*The Borg, as cybernetic, hive-like humanoids bent on the assimilation of other lifeforms, were preceded by ''[[Doctor Who]]’s'' [[Cybermen]], and a reference to the British sci-fi series is made in "The Neutral Zone", in a briefly glimpsed background detail of a computer screen which displays the names of the first six actors to play [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|the Doctor]]; showing that at least some members of the production team were aware of Doctor Who.

What do you guys think? --GracieLizzie 13:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that Maurice Hurley, who created the Borg, was aware of Doctor Who. To be sure, some members of the art staff were, and thus you get random Doctor Who references in Okudagrams, but this is a show that had scores of people working on it, and there are many such in-jokes visible only on freeze frame; it hardly is significant generally.

Furthermore, in their initial appearance the Borg were not intent on assimilating people in the way the Cybermen do: this was a new element introduced by Michael Piller's "The Best of Both Worlds". We could attribute an opinion to some science fiction critic noting that the Borg as they appeared from the episode "The Best of Both Worlds" are similar to Cybermen. Can you find such a source? Morwen - Talk 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If the main reference in the episode is the list of actors who played the Doctor then maybe that should be mentioned in the article here with the link across or it should be mentioned (at least in passing) in the Star Trek episode entry? As for the Borg/Cyberman link perhaps that should be left for the "Best of Both Worlds" episode entry and debated in chat there and here. I was only referring to the aforementioned list of Doctors. AlanD 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest so was I, but I pasted the Borg Stuff across too simply because it was part of the same section, I don't mind that going. --GracieLizzie 15:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

anyway, in what edit did i remove it? i looked right through the last 1500 edits and can't find any edit by me like that. Morwen - Talk 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here, I understand why you removed it - it is just a minor in joke - but it dose cause a little bit of inconsistency now. Perhaps we should link to the Memory Alpha synopsis -

• The Neutral Zone at Memory Alpha - via {{memoryalpha article|The_Neutral_Zone|The Neutral Zone}} as well? They even have a screencap of it. --GracieLizzie 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories question

Since Doctor Who was aired by PBS from the 1970s to a few years ago, and the current series is on the Sci-Fi Channel in the US, I think it's appropriate to list it under the various "DECADE TV Shows in the United States" categories. I know this is done for Danger Man and other British-made shows given widespread American broadcast -- but Danger Man and The Avengers etc. were all aired on mainstream networks whereas Doctor Who was imported for broadcast on PBS and the Sci-Fi Network is a niche cable channel. S'allright if I add these categories here? 23skidoo 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Break this puppy up?

I see Wikipedia management is concerned that the Who article is becoming too long.

I really think this page should be handled like the main "Star Trek" one. The overall "Doctor Who" page should be an overview of the franchise as a whole, briefly (and separately) mentioning the original series, the new series, the movies and maybe also the novels and the audio plays. Then people can follow the links to whichever aspect of Who they're most interested in.

The current form really does seem unwieldly, and I think it's pretty weird that almost at the very top of the article, we get what amounts to an advertisement for the upcoming "Runaway Bride" episode. This is why I think it would be better if the original and new Whos had separate pages (this would prevent the new series coverage from overwhelming the old, as well, as it seems to be doing right now.)

What do y'all think?

Doctor foreman 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that unlike the various Star Trek shows, the old and new Doctor Who are regarded by most viewers and fans as the same programme (albeit rejuvenated). Rather than splitting the article into old and new series, I think that the best way forward for shortening the article is to pare the sections that are spun off into sub-articles down, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Perhaps we could also spin the "Viewership" section into its own article. This may also be the impetus we need to finally get Companion (Doctor Who) (or Doctor Who companion) off the ground... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Josiah: same show, same article - just move the perceived fat. Cheers, Ian Rose 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah this article needs a bit of a diet. Just make sure anything cut is either already on or transfered to the relevant sub-article. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

to long...

this article is too long and confusing, i was looking for a list of episodes of the current series, still couldnt find it .... :\

List of Doctor Who serials - link at the bottom of article. There's no separate list for only the new series. Davhorn 17:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The obvious section for hiving off into a separate article is spin-offs and other appearances. DavidFarmbrough 09:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

that's no problems. who search always find

On a par with Star Trek

Actually, the anon might have a point. To say it's a cult favorite is safe; to say it's on par with Trek should require some kind of citation at the very least; by what criteria are we saying it's "on par"? Should we be making this kind of comparison at all? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - a comparison like that needs a citation of some kind, otherwise it's just a vague statement of opinion. Is it supposed to mean it's a cult favorite in a similar way to Star Trek, perhaps, instead of equal to? --Brian Olsen 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely should be cited or removed. Who's looking to bring down Doctor Who to Star Trek's level with any kind of comparison anyway? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctor - Another countries

В моей отсталось стране, России, показ начался только с 9го Доктора. Можете представить? О нем почти никто не знает. Никакой информации - только на английском.

Going from what you wrote in English, we might say "In my country, Russia, Doctor Who started only from his ninth incarnation. Can you imagine? There's no one who has heard about him. No information except in English." So, you see, you did rather well. Hu 15:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you

Appalling, phallic picture!!!

Who oin Earth has added the enormous, adult picture to the article???????? I've tried to delete it, but it won't go. What can be done? - NP Chilla 00:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Haahaha. Well that was funny and Weird. WOW. It was on all wikipedia articles (well I've seen on on a mosquito article, then here, and 100 of pages.) lol. WOW. maybe it was Jimbo himself. I have no idea. --Arad 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More images

The trimming down of images a short while back was good, and I don't think the article needs lots more - but I think that the "spin-offs" and "awards" sections would both benefit from an image each. Do we have any suitable ones? Are we allowed to use, say, the Torchwood images here within Fair Use? Percy Snoodle 11:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Theories

Theory #1: Z-space. Maybe we all lives in a parallel world (for the Doctor). The Doctor lives in N-space. In E-space he's unknown and in our universe (Z-space, for exsample) he is a TV-hero. But he can landing here (I think he did it at least one time). That's why Doctor so unclear. Z-space, in turn, containes different universes: I live in the Whoniverse as well as all real Doctor's fans.What do you think? Have you got any theory? Russian Little Girl 16:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who musical references

Has anyone here ever listened to a song titled “Me and Sarah Jane” by the group Genesis from their 1981 album titled Abacab? The song is written by Tony Banks; who is perhaps a Doctor who fan?

To me the song seems like it could be about the relationship between the relationship between the two fictional characters named "Sarah Jane Smith" and "Doctor Who" from the long running British television series "Doctor Who". You can read the lyrics at this link.

In the series, the Doctor is a Time Lord; The Time Lords are a fictional race of humanoids, originating on the planet Gallifrey, who are able to travel in and manipulate time and space through technology, they also achieve near immortality through a type of physical regeneration of their bodies while retaining memories and experience of previous incarnations. The Doctor often chooses one or two traveling companions on his adventures through time and space, Sarah Jane is one of the series most popular traveling companions of the Doctor.

Though like the immortal character Connor MacLeod from the 1986 Highlander (film) , he has come to know the bittersweet emotions and pain that come with watching the ones he loves grow old and eventually die while he remains relatively young and vibrant. To cope with this the Doctor only travels with his companions for a set amount of time that he knows must come to an end. The Doctors female companions usually fall in love with him and the partings are emotionally difficult and full of longing.

Though conceivably the Doctor could manipulate time and space to spend eternity with Sarah Jane, it would be contrary to his responsibility as a time lord to preserve the natural flow and order of universal time and space.

The Genesis song "Me And Sarah Jane" seems to be sung from the point of view of the Doctor who is reminiscing about his time with Sarah Jane, the wonders they witnessed, and things they shared like an old man daydreaming about women from his youth.

Comments anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikecwho (talk • contribs).

First of all, I should draw your attention to the box at the top of this page, which says "This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Doctor Who. It is not for discussion about the program itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article." I don't think the connection you're drawing is solid enough to merit inclusion in the article: unless the connection has been made in a reliable source, it would be original research to mention it in the article.

Second, it's worth noting that the emotional and romantic content of Doctor Who is much higher in the 21st-century version than it was when Sarah Jane Smith was first on the programme. Although some fans chose to see romantic content in the relationship between the Doctor and Sarah, it wasn't portrayed as obviously as the romantically weighted relationship with Rose in the recent series. Indeed, Sarah's appearance in School Reunion suggested more romance between the Doctor and Sarah than had ever been seen in the classic series.

That said, it's not impossible that Tony Banks might have had Sarah Jane Smith in mind when he wrote the song you mention. Even if it's not from the point of view of the Doctor, it could be about the character — perhaps the narrator is reminiscing about his lost childhood, and the innocent joys of watching Doctor Who. You might have better luck asking on a Genesis or Doctor Who fan forum. If you're looking for a Doctor Who forum, let me recommend Outpost Gallifrey's forum, the largest Doctor Who discussion forum on the web. I think that the discussion you're interested in is more suited for OG than for this page, which really should be restricted to discussion of the Doctor Who Wikipedia article. But thanks for your thoughts! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Companions character image

I think it would be much more appropriate for this section to bear an image of a character more associated with the series than one who hasn't yet been onscreen. Any suggestions? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Father

OK... Listing the mention of the Doctor as having been a father due to a mention in the recent series is valid but hardly news. Wasn't his first companion is granddaughter?AlanD 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that being a honorary sort of thing. NipokNek 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Was that in Canon or books?AlanD 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would have been from the TV series - I never got much into the books. I'm not saying I'm definitely right about this, but that's how I remember it. Also, in my opinion, the reference he's talking about seemed very much like a tease of some kind... Like how the Doctor is the "Father" of K9 Mk2 or somesuch. NipokNek 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian removed the mention of being a 'father' based on this being established in An Unearthly Child. I've popped both thing in together as, as far as I can tell, nothing on screen has contridicted these facts. The Susan page mentions the controversay as to whether or not Susan was his biological daughter but states that nothing onscreen contridicts this. AlanD 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Public Conciousness

I'd have to look it up for referencing but I'll flag it here in case anyone else wants to.

A little while back the Police tried to protect what they percieved as their copyright over the image of the Blue Police Phone box. They did, however, lose the case as it was felt that the copyright now belonged to the BBC as the image was almost wholly associated with Doctor Who.

There must be a few news stories around about it, I'll see what I can dig up.AlanD 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Got some of that wrong. I've got some sources and I'll put something in. Snippets SF Net Patent Office BBC AlanD 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fandom

I appear to have accientally removed a piece during my previous edit. This wasn't intended, apologies.AlanD 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ought the celebrity fans listing remain only on the Fandom main article? The references are extending the length of the main Dr Who article considerably now.--The Missing Hour 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they need to be moved from here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the celebrity fans list from the main article into the Fandom one, reordering it slightly in the process, but all names remain. The unreferenced box has also been moved to the Fandom page as I guess this is what it was referring to. --The Missing Hour 10:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Syndication

I had the same reaction as Percy Snoodle when I saw Category:First-run syndicated television programs added to this article last week. It provoked a long discussion at Category talk:First-run syndicated television programs. The thing is that in the 1970s, Doctor Who was distributed in the U.S. via the system known as first-run syndication. Even though that airing wasn't the first run of those episodes anywhere, it was the first run in the United States. I argued for a while that the category name was misleading, and eventually asked for a third opinion; the third opinion suggested that another, more specific category should be created for programmes like Doctor Who which aired via first-run syndication even though it wasn't actually the first run of the programme; however, a fourth opinion indicated that the specificity was unnecessary as long as the category page indicated that it was for first-run syndication in the United States. I didn't really feel that strongly about it, and didn't want to be advocating for a ridiculously over-long category name, so I restored the category that I had removed a week previously.

That said, if others think this category isn't appropriate for Doctor Who, we should continue the discussion on the category talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Who Weekly/ Dr. Who Monthly

Should there be a separate article for the Dr. Who Comic series, UK and the US reprints? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.21.184.95 (talk • contribs) 06:32, January 24, 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first two are covered at Doctor Who Magazine, and the US reprints aren't really that notable in and of themselves. But I suppose you can discuss at Talk:Doctor Who Magazine to see what editors there think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The symbols on the console computer

What exactly are they, and is there any wiki articles on them? Fergananim 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they're supposed to be Gallifreyan writing. The Doctor Who art department came up with an alphabet and number system. If you have any of the new series Doctor Who novels, you can figure out the numbers, but nothing's been published about the alphabet as far as I know. Since there are no reliable sources on the "Gallifreyan writing", you won't find any info about it on Wikipedia, but someone on the Outpost Gallifrey Forum might know something about it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading about this on the Doctor Who site. I will try to find the reference. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough information (released from Aunty in Wales) about Gallifreyan to warrant a page on the subject? Could we show the language the language, if it was actually designed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inaudible Triumph (talk • contribs) 01:14, February 13, 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of been designed, but I don't think that the production team have released enough info about what they've designed for Wikipedia's purposes. I doubt the designers have even developed a complete "Gallifreyan alphabet" — they just came up with some numbers and symbols with a consistent look, IIRC based on the inside of a watch. (Chris, did you find what you had seen about Gallifreyan writing on the Doctor Who site?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link from Canada hey!

Just though I'dd let you know that doctor who is a world wide phenomonon. Well... it's in Canada anyways. CBC has it on TV at 8 p.m. in UTC-5. Bellow you will find a link to an interesting CBC documentary on Doctor Who which will soon be comming to TV. Sorry, I don't have VCR. But the 10:15 minutes video is kind of interesting for this article and I feel should be included in the see also...

• Main Doctor Who website of CBC
• video's and more from CBC

If you peruse the above link you will notice other important links on of which is called dwin.org. Etc... etc... good source of information. --CyclePat 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh! never mind. I see the links are already in the article. But you may still be interested in checking out the "new"

documentary video. video's and more from CBC --CyclePat 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Ben Gaskell

Ben Gaskell has left comments regarding himself on the Doctor Who wikipedia page. I don't know how to remove it, so hopefully someone else does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.76.65 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for letting us know, but I don't see the comments on the page or in its recent history. Vandalism is usually removed quickly anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Contentious spelling: born/borne

I made a spelling correction which user:skittle reverted. As this is contentious I have rephrased the sentence so that the word is not used at all.

The original and reverted text was:

The programme was born out of discussions

which I changed to:

The programme was borne out of discussions

It was reverted with the comment

Actually, 'born' is correct here. Something is 'borne out by' something, but 'born out of' something. It's a figurative birth.

Here's my reasoning (for disagreeing and ultimately removing that phrase):

Both born and borne are the past participle of the verb "bear". However, the case born is used very specifically when referring to someone's own birth, and borne in all other cases. So, it would be correct to say "Jim was born in September", but also "Jim's mother had already borne one other child". When it's not a birth then borne is always used. See the last paragraph of the first definition of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear (quoted below in [1] in case that page changes). It was because we were talking of the discussions bearing forth the [ideas for] the programme (rather than giving birth to them) that I changed the spelling but I accept you could use the latter: this isn't a literal birth but you can have the birth of a nation, for example, and can therefore say that the nation was born (and not borne).

However, when you have the birth of someone, you say that they are born of their parents, not that they are born out of them (see eg http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/born.html, quoted as [2] below). Therefore, in the specific context of this article the phrase should be:

The programme was born of discussions

but I personally find that form ugly.

As the opening two sentences are anyway overly wordy:

Doctor Who first appeared on BBC television at 5:15 p.m. (GMT) on 23 November 1963. The programme was born out of discussions and plans that had been going on for a year.

I changed the text to:

Doctor Who first appeared on BBC television at 5:15 p.m. (GMT) on 23 November 1963 following discussions and plans that had been going on for a year.

which side-steps the issue completely.

Ros0709 16:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

--

[1] Usage note Since the latter part of the 18th century, a distinction has been made between born and borne as past participles of the verb bear1. Borne is the past participle in all senses that do not refer to physical birth: The wheatfields have borne abundantly this year. Judges have always borne a burden of responsibility. Borne is also the participle when the sense is “to bring forth (young)” and the focus is on the mother rather than on the child. In such cases, borne is preceded by a form of have or followed by by: Anna had borne a son the previous year. Two children borne by her earlier were already grown. When the focus is on the offspring or on something brought forth as if by birth, born is the standard spelling, and it occurs only in passive constructions: My friend was born in Ohio. No children have been born at the South Pole. A strange desire was born of the tragic experience. Born is also an adjective meaning “by birth,” “innate,” or “native”: born free; a born troublemaker; Mexican-born.

[2] Write “my love of dance was born of my viewing old Ginger Rogers-Fred Astaire movies,” not “born out of.” The latter expression is probably substituted because of confusion with the expression “borne out” as in “my concerns about having another office party were borne out when Mr. Peabody spilled his beer into the fax machine.” The only correct (if antiquated) use of “born out of” is in the phrase “born out of wedlock.”