Talk:Journey's End (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Daleks?

Just throwing it out there, but does that Dalek line in the description have any sources? (203.164.128.138 (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

No, it doesn't, and I've deleted it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty certain Daleks are in it, it was a little hard to hide a small platoon of Daleks when filming this episode :p. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.83.239 (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% sure Daleks are in it. I'm not too sure though... ;) LuGiADude (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there were no Daleks! :D lol--91.105.115.124 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

no daleks? NO DALEKS? have you even watched it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.181.72 (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain, that the user made a joke, as the ":D" and the "lol" indicate. As the article is already written and does indeed cover the subject of Daleks, I don't think further discussion about whether they were in this episode is needed. So#Why ^{review me!} 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

tidying up links

As we know title order now, can someone please edit this page so it allows preceeding link? thanks (code below - see, try to save people the effort) preceding = "Turn Left" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode 12 still has no title. — Edokter • Talk • 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But we know the episode exists, so couldn't the article exist with an unknown name, especially since we know it is the forst part of this episode NIKKKIN (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether the name not being announced has any significance!? All the others have been named after all. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RTD stated "it would give too much away". Anyway, there's also a navbox at the bottom, so there's no pressing need to include a link in the infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

the daleks are back, ive seen photos

ive seen photos of daleks, and you should add a thing noting that 'journeys end' was a gridlock working title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.188.180 (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't, because we can't find a reliable source for either of them. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How about all the clips of filming? LuGiADude (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we need it in writing. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why only written sources are acceptable. The cast of the confirmed season finale have been seen filming with Daleks, which in turn has been seen on the new mid-season trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.83.239 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care! Our policy is abundantly clear that only reliable sources count. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mid season trailer? Did I miss something? --Cameron (T|C) 13:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] Aired last night! —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If The Stolen Earth has Daleks, this episode will too. Can we add the category box? Digifiend (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where's Sarah?

On the Info box Sarah Jane isn't there, but if you edit the page, you see that she is, but she's not showing up? Why?--I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Only up to four companion parameters are supported. But do we have an official source yet? — Edokter • Talk • 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Elisabeth Sladen confirm it herself in an interview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.224.209 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

David Tennant himself confirmed that he'd have Rose, Martha, Donna, Sarah Jane and Captain Jack with him at the finale when interviewed on Jonathon Ross. They joked about it being like him being surrounded by the team on 'Loose Women'. 89.241.7.169 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully John Barrowman will confirm that when he appears on Jonathan Ross this week. Though he might be sworn to secrecy... Digifiend (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

K9

Mat Irvine informed me that K9 is also in this episode, although the character is not currently listed in the infobox (and so neither is John Leeson). I didn't want to add it myself, as I know that the episode is a while from airing yet and most of you chaps on here are very protective over adding non-confirmed information. My knowing that Mat was in Cardiff to film the scenes a couple of weeks ago will be seen by most as either word-of-mouth or just a made up rumour, so I'll leave it to someone else's discretion to add it.... Howie ☎ 22:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable source for it, we can't put it in. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just have the info direct from the source through spoken word... so nothing in writing etc. Shame Howie ☎ 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like no K9 - of the SJA cast, the trailer only shows Sarah and Luke. Digifiend (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

K9 appeared briefly... Dsalt (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What has the trailer got to do with whether a character is in the episode or not? As it happens I was correct and K9 did appear. Howie ☎ 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but we had no way of knowing that at the time, so people shouldn't have assumed it would happen, just because Sarah Jane appeared. Mat Irvine couldn't be cited as it was word of mouth, and K9 could've been on set for a SJA episode. Moot now anyway. Digifiend (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Companions and Daleks

I've seen photo's from the filming of this containing daleks, sarah Jane captian Jack Rose and Martha! Can I write this in the article please.

JordanAshley (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not unless you can cite a reliable source; sorry. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the new trailer doesn't show Martha, Jack or Sarah! It did reveal Davros (shown emerging from a corridor) and multiple Daleks though. Digifiend (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"also set in World War I"

As we're on the subject of "elements which cannot be confirmed", what confirmation is there for the episode being set in WW I, "also"?

This doesn't seem to fit too well with the named characters of this episode.

I may be mistaken, but I don't recall an involvement worth mentioning of troops with generals who have Spanish names - like the character of Michael Brandon, "General Sanchez" - in WW I; especially when combined with the Dempsie-character of "Klien" [in case that one were supposed to be a German name, the spelling would rather be "Klein" - the German word meaning "Little" -, anyway...].

There might be some similarities to the play "Journey's End" indeed, who knows (after all, there might be hundreds of reasons to call the final episode of a series "A Journey's End", without any relation to a play), but I really doubt that they include its setting in WW I... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.78.193 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not Spain, but Portugal was on the Allied side during WW1. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relable source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7320000/newsid_7325700/7325783.stm Apparently we will see Rose, Martha, Donna, Sarah Jane, Jack...the list may go on! Mommytorres

Unfortunately, it doesn't source them to this episode. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DWM

I don't have it; what precisely is sourced in the part cited ("Baptism of fire and ice")? Who is confirmed? Are they all listed? Is anyone listed who oughtn't to be? Worth checking!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I have the magizine and I think t's talking about planet of the ood(Icey planet) and fires of pompeii(fire) JordanAshley (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cybermen

Okay dont delete this staight away, theres a very reliable sourse to this and i have provide the link, the cybermen were in the alternate universce that rose was traped in it is very likely for them to come back, the darleks were in series 3 Russel T Davis does not have the same monstors coming back every year also there is photos of the BBC filming with David Tenent (The Doctor), Billy Pipper (Rose) and Cybermen Costumes, A spokesman for BBC Wales confirmed that Doctor Who was being filmed at St Woolos Cemetery Were the photographs were taken. greeny087 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2008 (GMT) References: http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2188951.mostviewed.cybermen_invade_newport.php

And how is this relevant to this particular article? --FF 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As there is no other episode that this could fit into on series 4, and its very likely that the last episode wil be either a 2 or 3 parter. g087 14:12, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

Unless it's a christmas special or something else, as the article itself points out. All we know is they filmed cybermen, that's all this article says. That's no enough to link it to this episode. You yourself said it could be a 3 parter, so it could just as easily be either of the two previous episodes. It's just speculation for the moment. Ged UK (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of the cybermen during gilming for the christmas special, there in thaty episode not this one.

86.160.63.137 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cybermen are for the Christmas special not series 4, series 4 has finished filming.--Wiggs (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pics of the doc and cybermen are popping up all over the place now. Does anyone know when we are going to create the 2008 xmas special page? --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably at the end of series 4, when the title will be revealed. — Edokter • Talk • 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what it has to wait that long, the Bond films usually start with something like Bond 22 and then change the name when it's published. Ged UK (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, next to the title, there wouldn't be any other usefull information from reliable sources that we could put in. Voyage of the Damned didn't start getting filled until way past July. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a better reason! Though we have already got info on Cybermen, some stuff on filming, we know a little about who's in it (at least DT). I'm not fussed either way, just thought i'd mention it :) Ged UK (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are also companion rumours...but I'll leave it to you guys. Even though...it has about as much info as some of the series four articles. One could argue that they neednt have been created until nearer the time. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is a fantastic example of why you shouldn't just add things because "theres a very reliable sourse [sic] to this". -- Chuq (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Davros

Photos have surfaced suggesting that Davros makes a return. Type 40 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos too now? Let's have a link! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was something I saw on YouTube about a month ago - video taken by a fan at a location shooting on the streets of Cardiff that had the Doctor confronted by Daleks outside the TARDIS, falling, and Rose and Sarah Jane rushing to him; also of Rose carrying a big gun. One of the shots had the lower half of a Dalek case that looked like Davros' "wheelchair" but with no one in it - suggesting a partly CGI Davros or at least a Davros prop without the actor present. Type 40 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, or it could be a headless Dalek. This is the best I can find right now though I think I saw another one that was clearer. [2] Type 40 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here it is [3]. So your guess is as good as mine, in the first two shots is that Davros' lower half? Type 40 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Those were simply Dalkes with their tops removed, but the mid seciotn still there... and Davros did not have a mid section. Seriously folks... true or not, we need irrefutable, solid sourced evidence before we can even mention Davros in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you search for Doctor Who Series 4 and either finale or davros you will find some interesting video about the finale. Now as far as a reliable source... http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7320000/newsid_7325700/7325783.stm Davros WILL be in the finale! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.80.173 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. The article doesn't mention Davros or specific episode(s), so it's not reliable enough!!!!lol —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And interpreting the "villain that had the bottom half of a Dalek, while its top half looked like it could be human" to be Davros is OR! --Cameron (T|C) 10:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned in today's Sun newspaper - it is indeed Davros. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1209142.ece Digifiend (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sun is a long way from a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this Daily Mirror article proves your point. Having a sonic screwdriver doesn't make one a Time Lady! Think of Partners in Crime... http://www.mirror.co.uk/tvandfilm/tvland/ Digifiend (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough, River Song is a (future) companion, not a Time Lady. Now I see why tabloid newspapers aren't trusted. Digifiend (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The 17th June 2008 release of the Radio Times (with the Doctor, Rose, Martha and Donna on the front cover) says on the back page (advertising the next issue) that the Daleks *and Davros* are returning for the finale... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Which means The Sun was reliable in this case. Unlike the Daily Mirror, who got River Song's identity wrong the same week. Digifiend (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Foreshadowing

Can we keep track of foreshadowing that has occurred thus far? There was a reference in one episode this year about the Doctor's journey facing an end, wasn't there? Type 40 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that one Ood guy said that...75.165.108.121 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ood said his "song" was coming to an end. Most likely in reference to River Song from the library episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.92.245 (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Companions

Sarah Jane and Jack I can understand, but it has been absolutely confirmed numerous times that Rose is in the last three episodes of the series, and Martha is in the last two. There is no doubt about this, and it is only right they are added to the infobox as companions. U-Mos (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this is an encyclopaedia where writing about events after the fact is okay and speed is not a priority. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that, but the length of time it has been common knowledge for really makes "speed" out of the question here. Rose, I recall, was announced as being in the last three episodes in the same press release/interview that announced that Donna would be in all 13. I'm sure someone would know where to dig to find that. And Freema Agyeman gave an interview a few months back where she confirmed her epsiodes to be 4, 5, 6, 12 and 13. This interview, to be precise. U-Mos (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources confirming Jack, Sarah Jane, Rose and Martha, yes.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rose - trailer footage is indisputable proof. Martha - quote from actress, source citation needed. Sarah and Jack are unproven. What are your sources? Digifiend (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Rose footage merely says that she'll appear in at least one of the six remaining episodes, and the 83% uncertainty isn't satisfactory! I'm sure she'll be in the finale but a specific source connecting her to this episode is required. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

I can't post this on the main page and probably rightly so. I just thought I'd point out that this website[4] says that Richard Dawkins will be making his appearance in this episode ("guest starring"). The website itself doesn't sight sources though and the only real genuine source is Russell's interview in the Independent, which doesn't mention which episode it will be. This website [5] takes the best bit about Dawkins out of the Independent interview. It seems Dawkins is going to be playing himself/making a cameo. Some sources have him as a "guest star" and I misread the above website at first, making me think he was going to have an acting part. That made me entertain the type of fantasy that's never going to happen: Dawkins as Davros! Wouldn't that be brilliant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.61.74 (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebs as themselves is usually in episode 12. Digifiend (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Chloe Georgeson

I would like to point out that Rose is 100% appearing in the last three episodes (Even if just by name in 'Turn Left') And I would also like to point out that it has been confirmed in various places that Rose, Jack + co, Jackie, Mickey, Martha, Donna, Jenny and Sarah-Jane are all in the last episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totally.doctor.who (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Where!?! Billie Piper gave an interview in Doctor Who Magazine (revealing Midnight and Turn Left plot details) and Freema Agyeman has been quoted as saying she's in episodes 12 and 13. But I don't see any mention of Jenny anywhere, and Torchwood hasn't been mentioned either, as far as we know, it's just Jack. Sarah Jane appears in all the same sources as Captain Jack, not linking to any specific episode. Strange header too. Is that your name or something? Digifiend (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Companion list

Come on guys. It took me all of five minutes to find the SFX source that confirms that Sarah Jane and Jack are in the season finale. In a source from January. Let's try to do a little work before we blindly start reverting things that are in all probability true, OK? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If no source is provided then the information is removed. It's policy = )...--Cameron (T|C) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy does not mandate removal - we have a lovely template at Template:cn that can also be used for information that one thinks is verifiable but is not yet verified. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That, plus the SFX source wasn't any good, it didn't mention specific episodes. —TreasuryTag—t | c 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"The climactic episode" pretty obviously refers to the finale. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources stating so? Otherwise that assumption constitutes WP:OR. Surely the climatic episode could be any episode? Who's to say it isn't the second last episode with the last episode being to cool everything down again? = ) --Cameron (T|C) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Such Cartesian doubt does not seem helpful. Absent some reason to believe that the fourth season of Doctor Who is going to abandon the pattern set by the first three seasons and by the arc of television series in the last decade or so, the climactic story is clearly going to be the finale. There is nothing to be gained by trying to read sources with the maximum possible skepticism. It could also be a clever and deliberate misinformation campaign on the part of the BBC to distract us from the real return, which will be a reunion of all living Doctors. However, in practice, we ought look at the clear and intended meaning - a reasonable reader will take "the climactic story" to mean what we do here - the final story in the season. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Phil (if the latest comment is you...), if there wasn't an exciting climax in every episode then the ratings wouldn't be as good :-) Seriously, there are BLP issues, and it won't matter if we wait a couple of weeks for the official press-release. —TreasuryTag—t | c 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP does not require radical skepticism on our part, however. It requires good faith and sensible readings of sources. A sensible reading of the SFX source says that they will appear in the final episode. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also WP:NOCOMMON... I say we wait, either for a new consensus to develop here, or for the press-release. —TreasuryTag—t | c 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NOCOMMON is an essay, and a bloody stupid one at that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As is WP:COMMON. As I said above, I say we wait, either for a new consensus to develop here, overriding the existing one (that says "climactic does not mean finale necessarily), or for the press-release. Neither will kill us. Could I also ask that you please stop simply revert-warring (it's helping no-one and setting a bad example to other users!), and accept the BRD cycle - we're now at the discussion stage. Cameron and I represent a consensus opposed to your POV. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in BLP, V, or NOR, however, does it say we must apply standards of interpretation that are wildly outside what a normal reader would apply. As for your "new consensus here" approach, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that it is possible to, through numeric strength, vote away the fact that sources say things. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, there is no consensus here. Also, you would do well to heed your own request (i.e., you should stop reverting too). Matthew (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both Cameron and I felt that your interpretation of the source ("climactic" meant "finale") was inappropriate; until a further consensus is generated then the numerical one must apply, unfortunately. As I said twice above (and you seem to have avoided commenting on), we could always wait for the press release, which will only be in a few short weeks and certainly won't kill anyone! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been solved by the addition of a source that is not open to interpretation. Matthew (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw that only after editing the talkpage here. Thanks for digging that up! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Question! um i know that jack harkness and sarah jane smith have been confermed, but shouldnt they be in the companion list? not in the other list. they are listed as official companions afterall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingnews1989 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the infobox only allows 4 names. Digifiend (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That, plus they're not necessarily companions in this episode. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For all we know, they could just be making cameo appearances (like Rose did thus far). DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool thanks. Lovingnews1989 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some TV listings mags (specifically Radio Times and Total TV Guide) have Martha Jones on the cover. Total TV Guide has Sarah Jane on the cover as well. Funny thing is, the magazines refer to Turn Left, which these two aren't even expected in (except maybe the next episode teaser). Digifiend (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

External link

The external link to the BBC website doesn't work, there are only pages of already broadcast episodes on the BBC website. should I remove it? General Staal (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The link will work automatically as soon as the page at the BBC is up. — Edokter • Talk • 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It currently autoforwards to the most recent episode, so at the moment it's Silence, but last week it linked to Unicorn. Thus, when it gets to Journey's End, the link will stick, and be correct. Digifiend (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult Times

Cult Times magazine's TV listings say that Ianto Jones and Gwen Cooper from Torchwood are in episode 12 (episode 13 is after the next issue comes out, but presumably CT has them down for that episode too). Can someone confirm this or prove them wrong? Digifiend (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my sources (!) said the same thing, and also {spoiler link}, but I'm not sure how reliable the magazine is. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your link should've pointed to {link removed - spoiler}. If Luke doesn't appear, I expect he'll still be mentioned. Digifiend (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But we digress... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, the second half of my previous comment now makes no sense with the spoiler removed... Digifiend (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So Radio Times has finally confirmed it. All three members of Torchwood Three will appear. Did the same article confirm the Stolen Earth cast? 212.50.191.46 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to log in. That was me. Digifiend (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode 12

I know the name of episode 12! But i'm not puting it down because it is top secret. Plus I have a reliable sourse. Can I make a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.46.55 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you make a page if you're refusing to tell us the name? Your source must be verifiable by the public, from a book, a magazine or an online publication, so a secret source isn't any good - anyway, we'll know the title this time next week (the Thursday press-release should give it) so we can wait 'til then. My bet is "{spoiler link - hover to see!}. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's simple really: if you do have a reliable source, make the page. If you don't, don't. If I'm quite honest I imagine you don't. U-Mos (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, IPs can't actually make new pages, but since - as you say - they don't have a verifiable reliable source (if, indeed, they even have a reliable source), the issue doesn't arise. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If it proves correct, that red link will soon turn blue. That name makes sense if you think of certain quotes from some of the prior episodes... Digifiend (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To the original poster in this topic. You don't have to ask permission to do anything on Wikipedia. That's the point. Although this page seems to have a draconian babysitter. I suggest you look at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN 71.193.243.8 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The spoiler link is moot, the title you suggested is mentioned on the Doctor Who series 4 talk page. Digifiend (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done TreasuryTag, looks like you got the title right! Digifiend (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Air date

Someone recently added a description citing a page that confirms an air date of July 5, but at least one reference in the article to the air date only gives the year 2008. Could a registered user please update the article? 90.210.193.126 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

July 5 would be 7 days after The Stolen Earth. But how do we know sport won't push it out - I'm thinking Wimbledon tennis. Digifiend (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the beep have confirmed yet. --Cameron (T|C) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced to the BBC Press Office now. — Edokter • Talk • 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gwen and Ianto?

These characters are sourced to this week's Radio Times. I have reason to doubt this is true, so could someone who owns the magazine please confirm/deny it? U-Mos (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea, but it has been added to the Ianto article. --Cameron (T|C) 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Radio Times is published by BBC Worldwide, so if they mention it, it's true. I'm the one who initially added it to Ianto and Gwen's articles (although Zythe has since rephrased it). Digifiend (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but I am not sure if the Radio Times actually says that Gwen and Ianto are in it. That's what I would like to be confirmed. U-Mos (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moot now, the next time teaser confirmed them, and Luke Smith as well. Digifiend (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Crossover

Is it worth mentioning that this story is the first crossover between Sarah Jane Adventures, Torchwood and Doctor Who, or would that be banned as original research? Jack on his own last year doesn't count as a crossover, as he originated in Doctor Who series 1. Digifiend (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane also originated from Doctor Who. — Edokter • Talk • 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is notable (especially as I beleive RTD once stated there would be no crossovers other than Jack? This would have to be sourced if mentioned, obvs). Also, both Eve Myles and Shobu Kapoor are the first people other than Jimmy Vee and voice actors to play more than one role within the new series. U-Mos (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what am I on about? Just Myles, obviously. But it's Stolen Earth that crosses over now anyway. U-Mos (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Chipo Chung who played Chantho last year played the fortune teller in Turn Left. So Eve isn't the only one to play more than one character. 86.156.40.244 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, what I wrote up there is complete rubbish. U-Mos (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And Freema Agyeman first played Adeola in Army of Ghosts and then came back to play her cousing Martha. I'll stop now :) 86.167.194.227 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It IS going to be some sort of crossover. The trailer for "The Stolen Earth" shows the hub from Torchwood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.88.229 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That was already mentioned in the article. Locations and cast. Digifiend (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maria Clyde and Luke???

Why aren't they on the list, although they are, according to the rest of wikipedia, in the episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06018 (talk • contribs)

Please be patient. We'll have it all sorted out by the time the episode airs. DonQuixote (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Trailer only confirmed Luke. If Maria is absent, blame real life exams, she's 16. (Saying that though, I think SJA has started filming)/. Digifiend (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Episode's length

While a 60-minute length (6.40 - 7.40) is cited, this BBC page contradicts it. I think this latter source is considerably more reliable. However, since that opinion may be controversial, perhaps the article should for now accept neither figure - although I think the 45-minute (7 - 7.45 option) should be included if said controversy does not exist.90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Last year's finale was 50 minutes. I'd wait until broadcast. Digifiend (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But in Lizo's Review of THe Stolen Earth, he states that next week's episode (Journey's End) is an hour long magicman92 (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's BBC. Which means it's as reliable as it gets, so go with 60 minutes. Digifiend (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

THEY'RE ALL BBC! Sorry for shouting. I just find it frustrating that the BBC is being so inconsistent. Apparently the latest DWM is now making it even more confusing by saying it's 65 minutes. (Are they also BBC trustworthy?) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DWM is Panini, not BBC. Second-hand info. BBC takes precedence, then DWM, then other sources. Digifiend (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Radio Times website is saying 65 minutes. I assume they know. Jamrifis (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This confirms a 65 minute runtime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.252.72 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to seem crazy, but if we have different sources, which are equally reliable, contradicting each other, can't we just say so in the article? Like "60 minutes^[1] / 65 minutes^[2] / etc."? --SoWhy ^Talk 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1h3m3s. Dsalt (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gethin Jones

Is it worth mentioning that Gethin Jones of Blue Peter is inside one of the Dalek casings in this episode (mentioned on Blue Peter 24/6/2008). He was also inside a Cyberman suit in series 2.Digifiend (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Checked other pages - it is already mentioned on the Gethin Jones article (I had to add the bit about it being a Dalek myself though). Digifiend (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is Gethin Jones, and what have those nasty daleks done to John Noaks and Shep? --Jenny 02:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by your John Noakes reference you know full well that Gethin's an ex-Blue Peter presenter (still current when JE was filmed). He left two weeks ago. Digifiend (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor?

Would I be correct in saying we can't add anything in the cast until we know for sure he's regarated? (Because it would be OR or something like that)

It had to get out of the way. 86.135.97.226 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, we have only the official press release to go on, which lists Mr Tennant as being the Doctor. What actually happens according to my sources is here [SPOILERS, if you're interested. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The David Tennant is signed for a fifth series so he can't possibly regenerate into a 11th Doctor. Jammy (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple, Tennant plays the Tenth and Eleventh Doctor. Funny chap that Russell T Davies. Still, jokes aside, wait for some confirmation. Alientraveller (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC could have confirmed it just to make us believe there would be no serious shockers at the end of this series, however, considering there is nothing about (especially on DW spoiler sites) a new doctor, presume that there will either be a stand-in for a while or the regeneration botches.(86.164.8.137 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Well, we are no forum here, so let's not speculate. We'll know in a week's time or maybe sooner, IF you can provide a reliable source. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep the Doctor credit blank until we know otherwise. E-flah (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Until the episode is broadcast, the most authoritative source we have is the BBC Press Office (followed by the BBC Doctor Who pages). The Press Office says he is the Doctor, so we should leave him as the Doctor until such a time as something more authoritative is released or the programme is broadcast. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC listings for Journey's End shows David Tennant as The Doctor http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=saturday&service_id=4223&filename=20080705/20080705_1840_4223_10427_65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.178.154 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they have him listed as the Doctor because they're going to show the start of his regeneration again, before morphing into the new Doctor within about two minutes of the start. – PeeJay 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But has anyone thought that he may not regenerate at all and its his human side that has been hit (The Eighth Doctor says this in the 1996 Doctor Who film that he is half human on his mother's side). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampanese1234 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 June 2008

He meant "side" as in his mother's genetic line, not a physical side. It's not possible for him to be hit only on the human side of him. Lrn2Genetics. Also, the events of the movie involving the 8th doctor are rather apocryphal at best, ESPECIALLY the half-human bit. That's why the Daleks in "The Parting of the Ways" screamed "BLASPHEMY" when Rose said they were half-human - it was a less than subtle dig at the movie. 124.148.92.245 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all to do with the severd hand, notice the un-subtle close up of it at the start of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevey V2 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, we are NOT a forum here, take your speculations to a fan site and come back, if you have some sources for anything you are just guessing at at the moment. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We do know the regen will fail, because of the pictures mentioned in the Cybermen discussion above. Digifiend (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. We are guessing from the little information in there. But we do not know it for sure and thus it would be speculation to include. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But why would Tennant be on set with Cybermen if he's not in the episode - which is assumed to be the Christmas special. Digifiend (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't know. As you say, "assumed to be...", i.e. it's speculation and your own conclusion. We cannot add it to the article unless we have a clear source that states "no regeneration" (because even if it's the xmas special, it could be set before this episode). --SoWhy ^Talk 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to just be patient and wait till the episode airs. After that it'll be completely out in the open (hopefully) and all this discussion will become moot. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if all this was a huge PR move to prevent what happened in Series 1 with Eccleston...and I also wouldn't be surprised if the cliffhanger to "Stolen Earth" wasn't some sort of red herring to generate all this discussion. Hmmmm...now I wish it were Saturday already.... DonQuixote (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Trailer for Journeys End

On the BBC website on Stolen Earth there is a trailer which displays the Tenth Doctor which I think is his state after regeneration. Does this need to be mentioned on the page or is it not needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.40.98 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it any different to the events at the end of The Stolen Earth? For all I can see, it's revealing more about Davros' plan but the regeneration part is the same as with TSE. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't from the new episode - it's reused from "Stolen Earth", showing us the start of regen. He is lying down looking at his hand, and whilst regenerating/after regeneration he is standing up - from Eccleston to Tennant he was standing up, and the Master's regen was the same. Dave (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that that trailer content isn't actually available for viewing in the States just yet, so it isn't really verifiable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? There are pleanty of UK-based Wikipedians, and any of them can verify it. _TalkIslander 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does not mean that everyone must be able to verify it. Islander is correct. Also, the trailer is on YouTube multiple times and can be viewed there. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that only one of them is uploaded by the BBC, and that is again locked to the UK (not that that's a problem). The rest are copyvios. _TalkIslander 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my point exactly. As we can't list copyvios as sources, we have to list what is official - even if you need to ask a UK-based editor to verify it. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Is there someone who can verify the content. please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks around for someone* Hmm, OK, how's about me? :P. I can verify that fact you keep removing, re. the Doctor's Army. Anything else?_TalkIslander 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a nice choco biscuit? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredibly arrogant. Since when does something have to be available in the US to make it Wikipediable? Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Arcayne: please take note of this for the future. 91.108.49.61 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, what was incredibly arrogant? Asking for a choco biscuit? I thought to be a bit witty, myself. When a source isn;t immediately verifiable, it is not untoward to ask for confirmation. When I received it, you might note that I relented. Maybe you could find a tiny little place in your heart to begin exercising a wee bit of good faith for yours truly. Treating me like the enemy simply because I ask for more accreditation for our information isn't going to improve the article or your ability to interact with me. Be nice, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Companion listing

Without the BBC credit rolls, which we haven't seen as of yet, there isn't any basis for listing the different actors as companions as of yet. With that in mind, I've rewritten the infobox to reflect that the guest stars are just that, guests. When we have citation as to them being companions for the purpose of this episode, then we can note them as such. Not before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a two-parter (sorry, three-parter), so it should be the same as The Stolen Earth. So as much as I hate this needless and meaningless "additional stars" field, that's what it should be right now. U-Mos (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But haven't we already determined that we follow the BBC credit rolls? Everyone argued vociferously that following the credit rolls exclusively outweighed the alternative of listing them alphabetically. This is a non-starter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We absolutely follow the credits, and are at the moment (the "credits" being the online version sourced in the infobox before broadcast). I don't see the issue. U-Mos (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, so wy are we listing folk as guest stars/also starring/companion? They are not listed that way in the BBC credit rolls, and we don't get it both ways. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't list them as anything. Common sense dictates we should use the information of other sources to clarify roles as far as possible, including the fact that this episode is directly linked to The Stolen Earth and so companion/additional star/guest star in TSE means they will have the same role in this. U-Mos (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We have already determined that we follow the BBC credits for the cast. If we are going to use that non-specific source, please feel free to add Captain Jack and his crew and Sarah Jane as companions in all' of the articles where their characters appear since, by your reasoning, we have to. Sorry, this is a rather silly argument to be having. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible dying characters

In the previous episode, Dalek Caan predicted that "the Doctor's most faithful companion" will face "everlasting death". Should a list of possible characters to die be added to the article? I can think of three:

• Rose Tyler: Was a permanent companion for two of the new series four season.
• Sarah Jane Smith: As she is the only companion from the old series to appear in the new series, this makes her a possibility.
• Captain Jack Harkness: Based on Caan's use of the phrase "everlasting death", as Jack is immortal.

(Najhoant (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

No. Because all of that is speculation. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 10:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One, it's just a load of speculation. Two, only one person on that list could possibly die and that is Rose Tyler considering both Sarah Jane Smith and Captain Jack both have spin off TV shows that are set to be filmed. Plus you forgot to add Donna Noble to the list. Jammy (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SoWhy and Jammy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to add the Tardis to that list .Garda40 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Jammy's comment is a rephrased version of something I said yesterday, and why was my comment deleted? By the way Jammy, SJA is already filming, according to Doctor Who Magazine. Digifiend (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just checked, Jammy rephrased my comment and took the credit! I checked the discussion page history. Thief! Digifiend (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! God damn him for voicing an opinion that happened to agree with yours in similar wording! How dare he violate the copyright you have over YOUR STATEMENT. You better take him to court and get like a million dollars. 124.148.124.11 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if it wasn't for the "don't edit the archive" rule, I would have restored Jammy's comment to mine. Digifiend (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. It was archived incorrectly. Archiving occurs when a conversation is actually done or has gone for a certain number of days without comment. It does not occur when one person wants it to be done. If you see that in the future, please feel free to remove it yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I did what? All I did was add a comment. Jammy (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He was misleading Davros anyway. the real prophecy wasa the death of the Daleks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.88.229 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

DrWho1975

Would you please decide on your changes and make little grammatical edits in one big update. Your tiny little repeated edits are making it hard for anyone to get an edit in edgeways, and you're cluttering up the history page. Thanks. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, rather than fighting with edits, come here to resolve debates. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be a better idea to leave a discrete note on the user's talk page. --Cameron* 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, and here's a crazy idea, how about people take the time to make grammatically-correct edits in the first place, then people don't have to go around fixing their mistakes in a way that obviously annoys you guys so damn much? --82.6.90.185 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Like none of you have ever made mistakes. Perhaps if people went here to discuss my changes instead of reverting them I wouldn't be in such a hurry to correct myself and thus also make grammatical errors.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise for not contacting you on your talk page, but having attempted to get in touch with you in the past I decided this was the only way to keep the article sane in the hours after broadcast. And edit summaries are still not the place to debate why something should or should not be in the article. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an edits by you to my talkpage.... however I apologize for not checking the discussion board.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Return of the Cybermen

You could claim that "Voyage of the Damned" was not the title seeing as it didn't explicitly state "VOYAGE OF THE DAMNED IS THE TITLE FOR THE NEXT EPISODE" it just said "Voyage of the Damned". Same for "Return of the Cybermen", yet we instantly put "Voyage of the Damned" as the 'following' and WP:OSE is rubbish lalala I've ended my rant LuGiADude (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote in "Last of the Time Lords" was "Doctor Who will return at christmas in VOYAGE OF THE DAMNED". That certainly was clear enough. — Edokter • Talk • 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Return of the Cybermen" could mean that simply Cybermen are returning, not that the episode is called that. With VOTD, you don't have that ambiguity. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I never took it to mean the tile is "Return of the Cybermen". Just that... the Cybermen are returning. U-Mos (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Return of the Cybermen is just a working title until they can think of something better. Well thats my view anyway... All Grown Up! Defender 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page called "Doctor Who: Christmas Special 2008" for putting in what we know about it for the time being? E-flah (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with E-flah, like other examples (e.g. Bond 22) we should have a temporary article until the name is disclosed and then move it to the final name. I created one at Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't really know anything. One: cybermen. Two: David Morrissey. That's pretty much it. No article yet, I don't think. U-Mos (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptre and Edokter, there's no reason to think that the title is "Return of the Cybermen". As it happens, I believe it is {spoiler link - hover to see}... remember, you heard it here first ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page is not the place for posting potential spoilers. And no, I didn't hear that here first - that rumour has been doing the rounds for a while. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat you to it anyway, and Sylvester McCoy's website can't be trusted. Digifiend (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

GGGhosts in machines

I beleve that the next epissode is called ggghosts in the machiness . I have a ssorsse. www.ssylvesstermccoy.com/newdoctorwho/ .

ssorry about the dobblingggss up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.0.209 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That source is all speculation; it even has notes on the 6th series, which hasn't even been written yet. — Edokter • Talk • 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:( LuGiADude (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the same site that told us episode 12 was War on Skaro 86.154.185.86 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane's Pendant

Did Sarah Jane's warp pendant nuclear bomb thing appear in a previous episode of (old) DW or one of those SJA episodes that I didn't bother watching? I think she said she had received it as a gift from a soothsayer. MultipleTom (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It might have been from the same soothsayer, but it wasn't the same pendant. That one's function was to allow people to remember those close to them despite them being wiped from a timeline due to a changing of history, and it wasn't a pendant, more like some kind of rubik's cube kind of thing but diagonal instead of square. Homoaffectional (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted in a talk page, and am prolly doing it wrong. But I wanted to add that Sarah Jane said she got the pendant from a Verron Soothsayer. Presumably it is the same Veroon Soothsayer who gave her a puzzle box in "Sarah Jane Adventures: Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane?" and told her to "Remember". Interestingly, the Verron Soothsayer turned out to be the Trickster. The beetle on Donnas back belongs to the Trickster's brigade. 76.107.39.123 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Trickster wasn't the soothsayer... Ophois (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The soothsayer foresaw the Trickster's plan, and so gave that to Sarah Jane so someone she trusts (Maria) would be protected.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Doctor?

Is he played by Tennant or somebody else?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's David Tennant. U-Mos (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as mentioned in the Confidential it's someone else for long shots but the rest of the time it's David Tennant .Garda40 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't apreciate the sarcasm... plane tickets to England are expensive. I will be there for Guy Fawks night though.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not David, it's another actor (at least, only in scenes where both doctors are on-screen at the same time!) --91.105.115.124 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, it's David then also. Only when they shot the back of one Doctor, or the shoulder of one at the same time as the other did they use another guy, who was named in Confidential as Collin. And Dr who1975, let's be careful to stay civil. U-Mos was only referencing WP:DUCK. _TalkIslander 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should have something about the use of two Doctors, and fortunately Doctor Who Confidential gives a fair amount of information about how this was done, starting at about 14'30" on the BBC iPlayer version currently available online in the UK (I'm taking my timings from the Virgin cable version; the BBC website version may be slightly different). The sequence starts when Davies says "This is so busy and so mental and so epic and universal in scale that of of course you need two Doctors to solve it." Phil Collinson, Graeme Harper, and David Tennant discuss the use of the double, a musician called Colum (it's an Irish man's name) who is a very good physical match for Tennant. Collinson explains that while with an unlimited budget they'd the'd use Tenant in every shot, "we only have a certain number of effects shots where you can see the two Doctors together, so we have to pick those carefully."

Harper is then shown directing a scene in which both Colum and Tennant are shown around the console. Harper explains that in "two or three wide shots" they were able to use Colum and Tennant together.

Tennant tries to explain the procedure for making an effects shot involving Tennant as both Doctors. The camera is locked in place while Tennant goes off and changes clothing, with Colum holding his place. A shot is made for reference with Colum, then another shot is made without Colum. Tennant dissolves into incoherence at this point, but the process described is a well known technique enabling the shots to be merged at the editing stage. --Jenny 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

His name is Colum Regan. He is credited in Voyage of the Damned as a stand-in for David. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Losing the plot

Brilliant job. Really. The article is (semi)protected when it is most likely to receive attention and improvements. "extending to end of episode on that day and prevent further speculation ... (expires 18:45, 6 July 2008)" - somewhat out on the timing there. Come on, get back to "that anyone can edit" on something as simple as this. 91.108.49.61 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I have requested unprotection. Thanks for bringing it to attention. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dårlig Ulv Stranden

Bad wolf in norwegian would be slem not dårlig. Dårlig means something of inferior quality, while slem means bad, as in evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.14.211.93 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Exterminerien isn't a German word either. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Still funny, though. German Daleks. Ha! — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The words had to be German-sounding but recognisable to English speakers. Whatever word might be used by a native German speaker instead of "exterminieren" probably would not work in the context of a drama for English speakers to watch. At least they didn't talk like the gestapo men in Allo Allo. --Jenny 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the old German sync they said "Vernichten" (destroy), Exterminieren is reasonable, though. After all, exterminate was not really an English word outside of DW before it was used by the Daleks as far as I can tell. As for the wolf, I don't see why bad should be bad in the meaning of evil - although admittedly, it's a stupid name for a place. 83.189.121.36 (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "exterminate" was around lonh before the Who universe came into existence - the Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition "to destroy utterly" and dates it from 1649. (There are other meanings, but they are all obsolete.) This is clearly the meaning that the Daleks have for the word.

As for the German, my (small) bilingual German dictionary has "ausrotten" for "exterminate", but using that would have just been confusing and distracting. Of course they had to use something that would have been understandable to anyone, whether or not they know German. "Exterminieren" is sham German - search for it on Google and pretty much all hits are about Doctor Who. It's interesting too that the conversation in German between Martha and the German woman is not subtitled, so there we are left to draw our understanding of the scene from other cues.

And Dårlig Ulv Stranden doesn't mean "Bad Wolf Bay" and isn't pronounced "Dalek ..." either (see http://iaith.tapetrade.net/doctorwho/reviews/9v-review.html). The letter å is pronounced like "aw" in "paw". Ah well. Artistic licence. — Paul G (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it can be used in German, being a "Lehnwort" from English, but it isn't. In the German Doctor Who synchronization, the word "eliminieren" is used, i.e. "to eliminate". --SoWhy ^Talk 10:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker I can confirm that the word "Exterminieren" is not existing in German, no native speaker would ever use this word.. But I assume they wanted a word that the English speaking audience recognizes and... well, can't the Daleks make a translation error? ;-) .

The dialogue between Martha and that German woman is also not done very well, for you can clearly hear that the actor playing that German woman is not a native speaker too, which is very funny because she "recognizes" that Martha is speaking a London accent. The German dialogue is this:

"Here is nobody, whatever you want, go away. Leave me alone."

"My name is Martha Jones. I'm coming from UNIT, Agent 56671, medical unit."

"They said, you were coming... the accent, that is London, isn't it..."

Then the dialogue continues in English. Later when aiming the gun at Martha, she again talks German, saying: "You are the nightmare not the others, you are. I should kill you. Right now at best" and after Martha says "Then do it", the woman says: "Martha, to Hell with you." 84.167.166.156 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1964 the memory of the Second World War was still so strong that as little children in the early sixties we would play war games in which the baddies were always Nazis. Thus the original daleks of that year were, in effect, Nazi stormtroopers in metal skirts, and I suspect the use of the word "exterminate", which in British English is also used in connection with the Holocaust, was related to that conception of the daleks as genocidal warriors driven by hatred. --Jenny 11:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

References

I have tried to provide standard citations for all the flashbacks and references using episode citations. This has long been standard practice on Doctor Who articles. One only has to look at "The Stolen Earth" to see this in practice. Another example of articles where this happens is the "Doomsday" article. However, these citations keep being removed as "unnecessary" and/or too plentiful. Just because they are numerous, that does not make them less valid and surely more references strengthens the article? To avoid an edit war, I will not be editing this article further, but would like there to be wider discussion as to wether these references should be included or not. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, your exhaustive list of refs is pointless because they're not referencing anything. You give no context or a list of clips by which to go by. The refs have nothing to do with the sentence. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that your problem with it then? That I removed the list of episodes they are from? I only did that because I'd seen that had been done for one of my passages on "The Stolen Earth" article. I was following suit. Look through the edit history and you'll see my original version was a full paragraph listing the clips in the order they were shown with the start of the sentence providing context for them. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have removed the list, too, as such a thing would be much too trivial. When I look at the stolen Earth, I see episode refs being used as they're supposed to be used, reinforcing a specific important fact. Your list, or just the refs, just mention scenes. It's not something that needs 11 different cites. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of that long list of episodes. It's too long and the informational value is infinitessimal. --Jenny 07:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Casual viewers who have not seen every episode of new Who may not know where those scenes come from and should they read this article they may seek to learn where they were from. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And how are they supposed to figure that out from the refs? Do you plan to give time indexes, context for each and every one for a general idea? Surely you must see how quickly such a thing will bloat. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. However, I simply cannot understand how providing references for statements made on Wikipedia, thus making them clearer to the reader, is a bad thing. As it currently reads, "clips are shown from earlier episodes", the question is begged "what earlier episodes?" - providing references to these episodes answers this logical question that arises from the passage as is simply and effectively. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus it is far more relevent to the article than informing readers that Dervla Kirwin and David Morrisey have acted with David Tennant before. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that when a reader clicks on a reference, they should be able to understand immediately, either from the content in the reference itself or from the sentence to which it is attached, what it is they're looking for. If I say this episode uses a clip from Turn Left, and then I make a reference to Turn Left, explain how the reader will be able to confirm the statement. Unless they watch both episodes, our plot summaries will not be sufficient for them to identify the meaning of the reference. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My original version explained what the flashbacks showed, e.g. people who had died saving the Doctor, gave the episode titles and provided a reference for each episode. This was removed. I cannot see how this was out of line with what you ask for in your previous statement. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That goes back to it being trivial, a different issue. However, in actually reviewing your list, my original statement stands. How is the reader to understand what scene they are looking for? There is no description of the scene, only its source. Therefore, a reader is left wondering what scene the line speaks of. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The scene is clearly explained as the one in which Davros taunts the Doctor about the deaths he has caused and why these clips are shown is explained as them illustrating people who have died saving the Doctor. I disagree with it being trivial because it provides clarity for the scene and is appropriate under a section that purports to explain Continuity points. Flashbacks require explanation particularly for the benefit of those who do not have extensive knowledge of the episodes in question as I do and I suspect you do too. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

From your list, how am I to know, assuming I knew nothing of the episode, that the Midnight ref is referring to the unnamed hostess? You keep failing to realize that you're giving no context. How you reffed each episode is like saying, "Bush said 'this and that' in Time magazine.<ref>Bush, Time Magazine</ref>". Per my example, in what month, what issue, what page? Did he say more, less? The problem with your refs is that they're not relevant. You're basically telling people to stumble about in the dark. A ref is only helpful is the information it is referencing is immediately apparent to the user. With no context as to whom or what the refs refer to, other than the fact that they refer to a specific episode, the reader is unlikely to find their way. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And you're failing to see what it does add to the article. By listing the episodes concerned a reader will be able to know that in these episodes someone - one of the nameless string of faces featured in the clips (from their perspective) - died to save the Doctor. No, this will not help the reader know who was who in the clips, however it clarifies Davros's point in the episode this article is concerned with. For all a casual viewer/reader knows these people all died in a just a few episodes and this is quite rare in Doctor Who. The number of episodes clips were drawn from reinforces Davros's notion that the Doctor is responsible for many deaths on many occassions. Stating which episodes these are allow casual viewers/reader to gain an understanding of the context in which these people died. No, they won't know who specifically died and at what particular moment in the episode - however, they will be able to gain an impression of in what circumstances someone died for the Doctor - e.g. during a Cybermen invasion of Earth, when a werewolf was on the rampage or when a fat monster designed by a Blue Peter viewer absorbed people. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All of that hinges on the reader understanding your intent. In the case of the list, it's just redundant. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better simply to list the names of the characters? The episodes in which they featured, and those in which they died, would be apparent in their individual articles. For those minor characters who only appeared in one episode and have no article, create a redirect to the episode. --Jenny 09:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

An idea I also considered, although I went with the other format because I could provide citations for the episodes I was mentioning. I would see this alternative format perfectly acceptable, though I imagine, as this discussion shows, others would not, so I shall not hurry to add the information in this format instead. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is wholly silly. The sentences as they now read are vague to the point of uselessness. I came to this page a few minutes ago because I just saw this episode and was trying to figure out who all of the people shown (and corresponding episodes) were. This is the sort of information that these episode articles usually provide, and I should not have to look into the edit history to get answers. The statements now left in the article are simply puff. I do not see why the practice established in the articles mentioned above by WoF should not be followed. Andrew Levine (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Andrew's point corroborates what I was saying. I have thus done as Jenny suggested. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's pretty good now. --Jenny 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a footnote explaining the origins of the clips as in the cases of recurring characters who have died the clip used (as it is not the moment of death shown in each case) could be from any of the episodes. This footnote establishes where the scene depicted comes from. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Colum

Colum, not Colin. Tennant pronounces the name a few times, and pronounces it distinctly as Colum with his precise Scottish accent. The name is an Irish man's name. --Jenny 09:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's actually "Collum" (double l), but I might be wrong. His name appeared in a caption in the trailer for the episode Doctor Who Confidential for Journey's End. Furthermore, this is his given name, not his surname (which is Sanson something). The article should therefore refer to "Sanson-whatever and Tennant", not to "Col[l]um and Tennant". I can't get the episode of Doctor Who Confidential to play at the moment to check these details (it's at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/confidential/ - accessible within the UK only), but if someone else could they might like to check and change the article accordingly. — Paul G (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure from context that it's his first name (so it should be Colum and David, perhaps). I took the spelling from Google. Collum is a common surname, but as a first name Colum seems to be more common. If there is a cast list with his name on, we should use that. --Jenny 11:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For further reference: http://www.columregan.com/ — Edokter • Talk • 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ood Music In This Episode

The incidental music heard when the TARDIS tows the Earth back to its proper place is a re-vamped version of the Ood's "Song of Freedom" (as heard in Planet of the Ood). Significant enough for a continuity mention? 24.19.25.79 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think so - can you find a source for this? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need a source, it is actually the same - the two episodes can count as primary sources. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Davros...

I hope I'm not the only one who thought that Davros labeling the Doctor as the "Destroyer of Worlds" was a little hypocritical. Did he just suddenly forget that moments before, he tried to destroy reality itself? Just thought I'd mention that. - Joe (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... take a look at WP:TALK ;). _TalkIslander 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But Davros is always stopped and ultimately doesn't destroy anything. Where as the Doctor wipes out the entire Dalek race. AGAIN. It's an intentional irony. Not worth mentioning really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.166.229 (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackie and Mickey as companions

Unresolved

 – Jackie is not a companion. Agreement not reached concerning Mickey, but discussion was going nowhere and the consensus believes he is a companion, mainly due to his status on the BBC's Doctor Who website.

Should Mickey and Jackie be considered as companions for this episode? Mickey is considered a former companion by wikipedia, and he and Jackie served basically the same role as the other companions in this episode. Ophois (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't want to have to add companion6 and companion7. I don't consider Jackie to be a companion because she was tagging along with Mickey. Mickey, maybe. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think the fact that they were not included in the title sequence - unlike Donna etc. - speaks to RTD's intentions as to how to characterize them. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mickey is labelled as a companion on the wiki pages for "Girl in the Fireplace" and the two Cybermen episodes, despite being credited as a guest star. The same goes for Adam and Jack Harkness from the first season. Ophois (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any thoughts about whether Mickey should be considered a companion? Ophois (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If we list Mickey, we do Jackie short... I really don't know. A few days ago, there was a raging siscussion wether all the other should be considered companions. — Edokter • Talk • 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. But as I've said before, Mickey and Jackie do pretty much the same thing as the other companions. That, plus the scene at the end where they all control the TARDIS (though this is probably OR), signifies to me that at least Mickey is considered a companion in this episode. If the others are labelled as companions, I feel that he should. Ophois (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be. They were in the spillover credits and labeled first. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whether anyone other than Donna can be classed as a true companion of the Tenth Doctor in "The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End", given that the returning characters serve the same narrative purpose as Harry Sullivan did in The Android Invasion and as indeed Sarah Jane herself did in "School Reunion". However, I would like to point out that Jackie has never been a companion, despite her trip in the TARDIS in "Army of Ghosts" (and many, many non-companions have travelled in the TARDIS over the years...). She was a recurring character in the same vein as Francine Jones and Sylvia Noble after her. Mickey, on the other hand, began as a recurring character for his appearances from "Rose" up until "School Reunion", but in "School Reunion" he is accepted by the Doctor as a companion and is one until his departure in "The Age of Steel" - Noel Clarke even made the cover of Doctor Who Magazine for this reason - big picture of him holding the key to the TARDIS...but as I say, I am uncertain who, if anyone other than Donna, should be considered a companion or merely "former companions" as I have seen written in reliable sources. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening credits definitely merits as companions but the spillover credits are where the problem comes in. I think that of them, Mickey and Jackie should be considered companions or at least put in a note. You said Mickey was a rucurring character before becoming a main character, why can't Jackie have? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in taking a vote on it? Ophois (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Me two, the bbc lists mickey as a companionn, so he should be listed as one and i think jackie serves the role of a companion in this ep (Billiepiperfanno1 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

How are we going to do the vote? We could vote for either Mickey, Jackie, Both or Neither? Well, I'm going to put my case for Mickey forward:

Mickey - Appearance in the main credits is not indicative of companion status as stated above. Mickey surely is a companion here - the difference between him and Jackie is that he is listed under companion status on the website, and has been considered as being a companion before. Jackie is just "friends and family." Tphi (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But in this specific episode, Jackie does just as much as Mickey. I think we should have a note at the bottom of the infobox stating that Francine, Gwen, Ianto, Mickey and Jackie were given credit at the beginning of the episode. The same should be done for "The Stolen Earth" but with Harriet in lieu of Mickey of Jackie. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to Mickey being put in as a companion for this episode? If not, I'll add him in, and we can continue the discussion about Jackie. (Also, since Sarah Jane and presumably Mickey are considered companions in this episode, I think that Sarah Jane should be added as one in "School Reunion" and Mickey in "Doomsday".) Ophois (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do. This is why I'm suggesting a note. We can't jump to our own conslusions and deem people companions when we want to, we have to follow the BBC who didn't name them as companions. However, the were in the opening spill credits, which merits a mention. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The official site lists Mickey as a Series 4 companion. And if we go solely off of what the BBC says, then Adam can't be listed as one, and neither can Jack or Mickey for their original appearances. Ophois (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the official site lists Mickey as a Series 4 companion - what's the problem? Tphi (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He's on the BBC website as a companion, he helps the doctor, he rides in and helps control the tardis, and he's been previously been listed as a companion. In what way is he not a companion? He's got my vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.74.69 (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the website sadid that. He should certainly be counted now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The only difference between Mickey and the others is he isn't in the beginning credits. But as we know from companions in previous seasons (Jack, and Mickey himself), being in the credits is not a requirement. And indeed, being a companion isn't a requirement to be in the credits (Adam). Anyway, I've added Mickey to the page as a companion. Tphi (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because Mickey didn't appear in The Stolen Earth, and the same titles were used for both episodes. Jackie Tyler, Gwen Cooper, Ianto Jones, Francine Jones, and Harriet Jones were also credited after the titles (and not exclusively in the end-credits). They count as stars rather than guest stars, but it has no bearing on companion status. Mickey does count, and so does Sarah Jane (the only one to travel with three versions of the Doctor, this might be notable on her article). Digifiend (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Doctor's reaction to Jackie driving the Tardis is good enough for deciding that Jackie cannot be a companion. But as for Mickey, he's been a companion before so why not? Jammy (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackie achieves status as a companion with this episode. Granted, the Doctor doesn't allow her to help fly the TARDIS, but that was 1) OOC done for comedic effect, 2) ICly it makes sense because The Doctor knows Jackie's a little accident prone and easily flustered, but he wasn't dismissing her assistance in the past. She has fulfilled all the necessary qualifications of Companion status - the last one being walking through the doors of the TARDIS. The Doctor never had time to gain her trust further, or issue any plusses like her own key or sonic lipstick. Big deal. Jackie Tyler's officially got companion status as of this episode. Why even argue about it? ZachsMind (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused ZachsMind, who said anything about arguing? This is a place for discussion. As I've written above, there are no formal requirements for "becoming" a companion, so we must rely on official references to characters as such. The BBC site credits Mickey as a companion, for example. If you can provide such evidence for Jackie, then feel free to present it here so the issue can be discussed further. Tphi (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mickey is not a companion here. Granted, companions do not have to be in the titles, but when five companions are, when there are this many people, and when the credits have not been constant for the entire series (like series 1 and 2 were) a distinction has been made between Mickey and Martha, or Rose, or any of the others. Mickey is as much of a companion here as he was in series 1, or as River Song was earlier this series. In other words, he was not a companion. U-Mos (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC lists him as a companion for this episode. Ophois (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read this section. It is worth applying some common sense, however, rather than blindly following whatever is implied by a small section of the BBC's website. How about we look at the actual episode for guidance? Just an idea. The only reason we are listing Rose, Martha, Jack and Sarah Jane as companions are their status in the titles. Mickey is not given this, therefore he is in no way a companion, not through travelling with the Doctor or non-guest star credits appearances. He should have the same status as any major supporting character in any episode. To give a recent direct comparison, Sky in Midnight. U-Mos (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No. We have a source that says it is so. We have none that says "only names in the title are to be considered companions". And thus WP:V dictates us to list him as companion, even if it's not true. Because it's not about truth, it's about verifiability. SoWhy 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But we don't have a proper source. We have a picture of him under an umbrella category of "companions", with "s4" in the URL. In no way is that definitive verification of his status in this episode. And even if it was, who makes the website? Not anyone who actually makes the programme, I'll bet. If we had a source such as RTD calling him a companion in the context of this episode, there'd be no argument. But we don't. Therefore we should go with the programme and the suggestion it makes. As I said, common sense. U-Mos (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For now, the only source we can rely on is the website; the series 4 page does list him as a companion, therefor we have to take their word for it. Anything else (without sources) is speculation. — Edokter • Talk • 00:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But the source is nowhere near good enough (as I said above), so we revert to THE PROGRAMME. That's what I'm saying. No speculation there. U-Mos (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not good enough? I gather the BBC know what they're talking about... It is not our place to question the validity of the website; that violates WP:NPOV. It is a primary source, and we have to asume they know what they put up there. — Edokter • Talk • 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not good enough because it doesn't say Mickey is a companion. It says "companions" and there is Mickey. It's not attributed to anywhere in particular. All it says is that Mickey is a Doctor Who companion. We know that already. But in THIS EPIOSDE, he is not. U-Mos (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should move away from the fannish/anoracky OR stuff and just state that Mickey is a companion character who also appears in this episode...which is what the BBC is saying. Jackie isn't a companion because the BBC doesn't list her as a companion. End of story -- let's move on to the next thing. DonQuixote (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. He is a companion character who appears in this episode. So to be a companion here he needs to fulfill either being credited above a normal guest star (which he has never been), or to literally travel with the Doctor between "adventures", as it were. He does neither. U-Mos (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're first two sentences are pretty good...last two sentences, you're being fannish. What I meant to imply was that we should move away from that type of attitude. BBC says that he's a companion character who appears in this episode, so that's what we should state (wikipedia striving, however effectively/ineffectively, to be an encyclopedia). We should stop arguing about whether a character is behaving as a companion in this episode or that episode. This level of persnickety nitpicking is getting a little weary. Let's move on to the next thing. DonQuixote (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not being fannish. The "once a companion, always a companion" idea has been proposed and opposed fairly recently, and as I understand it has been accepted across the project to treat companions on an episode-by-episode basis. So here it is: Mickey is credited as a guest star; Mickey does not travel with the Doctor. If anything is fannish, it's treating people as companions on the basis of past episodes. I'm sorry to keep pushing this, but none of the above arguments have anywhere near convinced me that it should be any different. U-Mos (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"So to be a companion here he needs to fulfill either being credited above a normal guest star (which he has never been), or to literally travel with the Doctor between "adventures", as it were. He does neither." If you read my above comments you'll see why this is incorrect. There are no "fulfilments" for becoming a companion (see Adam, or Astrid), we must go with the reliable evidence we have, as SoWhy and Edokter have stated above. This discussion really is going in circles - DonQuixote has stated twice his belief that this topic needs to moved on from. I am inclined to agree Tphi (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are very much fulfillments to be a companion. Adam travelled with the Doctor. Astrid was credited above the level of a guest star. And, once again, a picture on a website is hardly reliable evidence. The evidence we have strongly suggests that Mickey was not a companion. It seems madness just to latch onto whatever source we can, disregarding what was actually in the episode. U-Mos (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The most important fulfillments for companionship are reliable, verifiable sources; the Doctor Who website, created by the BBC, one one of them. It explicitly lists Mickey as a companion under series 4. Only in the absense of such sources do we have to rely on our own interpretation, which is a slippery slope to begin with. — Edokter • Talk • 14:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) And even if we concluded that the BBC homepage is not stating Mickey is a companion, there still is a pretty strong consensus here to list him as such. So even if you could convince us about the invalidity of the source, you'd still have to change consensus. If you just go and change the page as you did before, you are either acting in violation of WP:V / WP:NPOV or against WP:CON. Neither of which is a good thing to do. SoWhy 14:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Woah there, let's not go down the policy violation route. If I was going to change it again, I'd have already done so. My changing it before was as a bold edit, which was then reverted. So discussion ensued. Not that I see any consensus to listing him as a companion other than saying "we have a source". And you see, my thing about the source is it DOESN'T explicitly list him as a series 4 companion. If it did that, there could be no argument. The only indication of it being specific to series 4 is the other data on the site, and "s4" in the URL. That's it. U-Mos (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mickey is listed explicitly under the header "Companions", while Jackie is listed under "Friends & Allies", all under the series' 4 section of the website. (Note that the older series have their own character archive.) What could not be more clear? — Edokter • Talk • 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[6] goes straight to the "series 4" website. Mickey is under the companions section of the main page. This says he is a companion. Not a series 4 companion, but a companion. Interpret it however you like, but at the end of the day it's an implication. Not explicit. U-Mos (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote you above: "I'm sorry, there are very much fulfillments to be a companion. Adam travelled with the Doctor. Astrid was credited above the level of a guest star." I'm afraid you've done nothing but proven Mickey IS a companion. While I stand by the fact that there's no one definition of a "companion" without external verifiable sources, in the episode in question, Mickey both travels with the Doctor, and is credited above guest star (he is given a starring credit). So even by your own ideas, he is a companion here. Tphi (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All I can say to that is "no he doesn't" and... "no he doesn't". It's pretty impossible to travel between episodes within one episode, so that's out. And he is listed after the titles, like Adjoa Andoh, Camille Coduri, Eve Myles and Gareth David-Lloyd. That was pretty much used as a special guest star sort of thing, although all that was actually on-screen were their names. U-Mos (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You merely said "travelling with the Doctor", to which I responded that Mickey did - as he does at the end of the episode. You'll also find that Mickey & co. are also listed as "starring" at the beginning. So, yes, and yes. Regardless, all of this is irrelevant as there are no official rules for becoming a companion, thus we must follow the verifiable evidence. All of which has been said multiple times now... Tphi (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "starring" was not on-screen, just their names. So nothing can be drawn from that, especially as this list was made up of non-companion characters. Mickey was used in this episode in the same capacity he was in Army of Ghosts / Doomsday and the same capacity Sarah Jane was in School Reunion. None of these are companions, and quite rightly so. I'd have thought my meaning of travelling between episodes would be obvious because a) I have stated that at least once on this page already and b) if they only have to travel with the Doctor in one episode that makes about 70 one-story characters companions over the show's history. And once agin, since when is a picture verifiable evidence? Perhaps instead of stating the same thing over and over again, you could actually address these points? U-Mos (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for stating the facts repeatedly, but it does not appear they are sinking in. Ignoring the list of characters at the beginning as it is not titled, I repeat yet again that travelling between episodes is not needed (Astrid, Donna's first appearance, etc.) Neither is their capacity relevant (Donna is still a companion in Midnight, for example). The website is the best verifiable evidence we have as to whether he is a companion or not. The website implies that he is, the consensus here is we agree with the website, therefore we go with that he is a companion. Tphi (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I never stated travelling between episodes was needed, I never said substantial capacity was needed, I stated something was needed. As in, something in the episode. There is nothing in the episode to suggest companion status. Nothing. And again, as you chose to ignore it again, since when is a picture verifiable evidence? U-Mos (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, going back to my previous example of Midnight, what in that episode denotes Donna as companion there? She briefly appears in the episode's beginning and coda, but is of no importance to the main plot of the episode whatsoever. I'm unsure as to which picture you are referring to, I don't recall talking about one Tphi (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly she is the Doctor's "companion" at this time: he mentions her, and he is seen to return to her at the end. Although off-screen, they arrive at Midnight together and leave together. Secondly, Tate's name remains in the opening credits. The picture is the picture of Mickey on the BBC website, the so-called "source" describing him as a companion. U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But she has of little to no consequence to the episode's narrative, which is surely the point you raise regarding Mickey. And once again, I remind you that the existence of a name in the opening credits does not denote companion status. What does, is the BBC site for season 4 - and the existence of his character section in there, under the companions section, with from season 4. It all boils down to the BBC site, which as it stands is by consensus a verifiable enough source. For sanity's sake, let's just leave this discussion here. Tphi (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mickey is a returning former companion, he is a crucial ally of the doctor, if it wasn't for his preacher rifle several characters would have died.He doesn't have to travel in the TARDIS to be a companion, the doctor doesn't rely on it all the time, he can walk, and he has a car called Bessie and a hovercraft, i say he should stay as a companion but jackie can't be a companion she fills the same role as Sylvia, Donna's Grandpa and Martha's family, sorry U-mos but i'm agreeing with Edotker on this one--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Defining "companions" in terms of "traveling within the TARDIS, etc." are fan-definitions -- that is, something to tie all the dots together. The simplest definition of "companion" is..."whatever the BBC says" -- which doesn't have any rhyme or reason other than whatever suits the needs of the producers at the time. No matter what you or I or anyone else may think, Liz is a companion, Kamelion is a companion, Mickey is a companion, Astrid is a compaion, etc. Mickey is a companion who appears in this episode. What specific function each of these characters fill in whatever episode is irrelavent, at least from the POV of wikipedia. If you're writing a research paper, then that's ok. However, going by reliable sources, the BBC website lists Mickey as a companion who appears in this episode. The most we can probably do without going into original research is to report that the BBC lists Mickey as a companion who appears in this episode. Arguing about it does not change the fact that the BBC lists Mickey as a companion who appears in this episode. So, the emphasise the point, we should probably list Mickey as a companion who appears in this episode whilst citing the BBC. DonQuixote (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I'm trying to put across DonQuiote, I agree with you and Edotker, a character does not have to travel in the tardis to be a companion, for example in Diamensions in time all the Doctor companions come back even though not all of them travelled in the TARDIS in that episode on the other hand this doesn't mean Crossover characters such as Peggy and Phil mitchell should become companions (they belong in their own universe regardless if they helped the doctor during that crossover special). But U-Mos doesn't seem to get it, His arguments for mickey going back to being a guest star are only supported by fan speculation which I'm afraid have no place on wikipedia, this silly argument ends now U-Mos.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Never did I say a companion has to travel in the TARDIS between stories to be a companion. Of cousre, if they do then they are automatically but that's beside the point. Otherwise, being "star" of the episode or other such indications could make them companions, and this must be decided on an individual basis. If anything's "fan speculation", it's saying he's a companion based on nothing but him being a companion previously. How exactly is it fannish to say he is not a companion because the episode in no way indicates he is, whether through actual role, crediting or even pre-release information? That he has been added to the main Doctor Who page (and I stress again, THE MAIN DOCTOR WHO PAGE) as a companion says nothing about this episode. All it says, as has been mentioned above, is that he is a companion of the Doctor. That doesn't mean he always is. So then we have nothing at all to indicate companion status in this episode, and that's the important thing. U-Mos (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the main page; that section of the Doctor Who webpage applies specifically to series 4. Earlier series pages are stored in the archive. Now can we please put this to rest? — Edokter • Talk • 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Go to bbc.co.uk/doctorwho. It is the main page. U-Mos (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the front page. Click any link and 's4' will appear. The current homepage applies to series 4 (and later) only. The old character pages are in the archive. — Edokter • Talk • 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's perform a little exercise in reading comprehension. "Mickey is a companion who appears in this episode." This is what the BBC says. This is what some editors are arguing for. "Mickey is a companion in this episode." Ok, the BBC doesn't say that. You're arguing against it. So am I, mainly because without reliable third party sources (since the BBC is rather quiet on this point) this borders on speculation. "Mickey is not a companion in this episode." The BBC isn't saying that as well, and it is also speculation. So the only thing we can say without going into original research is to say that Mickey is a companion who appears in this episode. Now let's move on to something else. DonQuixote (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's a companion who appears in this episode. So unless you'd like to add him as a companion in all his other episodes, add Sarah Jane as a companion in School Reunion and Rose as a comapnion for her series 4 cameos (note: don't do this), to list him as a companion in this episode's article is suggesting something we have no source for. U-Mos (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We have already established a source beyond doubt; the BBC homepage lists him as a companion in series 4. That is all we need to know. Trying to discredit this source in favor of your own opinion is not neutral... and Wikipedia is neutral. Can you please drop this now? — Edokter • Talk • 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As you yorself have said, all the source says is he is a companion who appears in series 4. Although I don't personally see it as enough to be a sole source for anything, that doesn't really matter here. He is a companion, fine. He appears in series 4, good. That does not make him a companion in this episode. We do not add companions unless they are explicitly companions in the episodes in question. Ever. Why should this episode be any different? U-Mos (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this is the only episode in series 4 that Mickey appears in, and he is listed under series 4 as a companion, it is only logical to regard him as such. The bottom line remains that this is the only reliable source we have. — Edokter • Talk • 13:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It still isn't exactly reliable on its own, and it is still only attributed to series four by a suggestion in the URL and the front page of the archive section. U-Mos (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, you can't get more reliable; it's the series home page from the BBC. The new pages were also specifically made for series 4. — Edokter • Talk • 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because they were made when series 4 started, doesn't mean they only apply to series 4. That's an assumation, and we can't make assumations. U-Mos (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was specifically made for series 4; they even released a news item about that. Do some background checking: you won't find any characters on the series 4 pages that did not appear in series 4. Now please, let it rest; you are all alone on this. — Edokter • Talk • 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And even that doesn't make companions in the list companions during the fourth series. It makes them companions that appear in series 4. Not series 4 companions. As you yourself said. We CANNOT make assumations, and this is one massive assumation. U-Mos (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as anyone else is concerned, he is listed as a series 4 companion. But since we're talking to a brick wall, taking this any further is utterly pointless. I am closing this thread. — Edokter • Talk • 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would remind Edokter that 'a brick wall' appears to be quite uncivil. I have purposefully stayed out of this debate because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it would be all to easy to make my own opinions look like fact. In a case such as this, the only real source we can use is Russell T Davies. Now, my lovely big DWM Series 4 Companion lumps Jackie and Mickey together with Harriet Jones, and so I would tend to put them in a non-companion place - but that would be POV, which is not welcome on Wikipedia. That's the problem with this infobox cast list - it requires decisions like this to be made. Oh well. EDIT: However, Jackie is a big part of the show, (oh dear, POV) and so maybe she should be as a Star, not a Guest Star - weebiloobil (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

U-Mos, for the last time: you are on your own. At least three people have disagreed with you. A consensus has been reached, namely that we follow policy and go with the website as the only reliable source available. No matter how much you argue against this, this will not change! No matter the ammount of rationalising about how Mickey is or isn't a companion in this episode, the fact remains the BBC thinks he is, and that is the only information we are allowed to use. And nothing is going to change that. Wikipedia is about verifiablility, not truth. I am closing this once again. IF you are even tempted to undo it, I recommend you go to How to win an argument first to see how you are behaving, because it isn't pretty. — Edokter • Talk • 22:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Third episode of a three-parter

Subject says it all. The episode is a third part of a three-part story, rather than second part of a two-parter, as the article claims.

91.192.241.20 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a continuing discussion on this at Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#Revisited. --Jenny 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

SFX magazine

I think the SFX magazine reviewer's comments are being given undue weight. It's just a science fiction magazine, whereas we have two mainstream sources. A description of the general verdict is sufficient. This is what we have at present:

Dave Golder of SFX brands elements of the plot as "scientifically rubbish" but asserts that "[i]f, while your brain is telling you, "This is crap!" your heart is still doing backflips then it's your kind of episode", stating it "is almost a two fingers up at technobabble". He states that "as with many of [Russell T. Davies]'s Who scripts...emotion was everything" and that "[t]he plot does hang together, but only just", arguing it was too crowded and that some of the guest characters were "unnecessary...meaning that some areas of the script are left underdeveloped", particularly lamenting the underuse of "Jacqui" [sic]. He praises the characterisation of Donna, Davros, Rose and the Doctor and the action sequences. He describes Davros as "excellent", but says the Daleks were mostly mere "[c]annon fodder". Overall, he describes the episode as "exceptional" but "not perfect"

That's appreciably more words than we give to two reviews in the mainstream press. In particular The Telegraph has an audited circulation of nearly 900,000, whereas SFX has 30,000. I edited it to read as follows, which I think was still giving perhaps too much weight to SFX, but it has been expanded again:

Dave Golder of SFX writes "If, while your brain is telling you, "This is crap!" your heart is still doing backflips then it's your kind of episode. "Journey's End" is almost a two fingers up at technobabble; there's certainly tons of it in the episode, but it's largely irrelevant." He praises the characterisation of Donna, Davros, Rose and the Doctor and the action sequences. Overall, he describes the episode as "exceptional" but "not perfect".

--Jenny 08:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning for expanding it again at the time of doing it - although I must note I did not expand it back to its original length and took on board some of your edits. I think the slightly longer, (and it is only a bit longer than the account of John Beresford's TV Scoop review and I've never heard of TV Scoop - at least SFX has its own Wikipedia article), version provides a fairer appraisal of Golder's review. I'm also puzzled by your use of the word "mainstream" and your citing of circulation figures given that the sources in question have all come from online as oppose to their paper equivalents, be they newspapers or magazines. Surely to quote figures in this case, hit rates would be the appropriate source. Yes The Telegraph and The Guardian have wider circulations, but SFX is a well-known and trusted source specialising in the genre in question, science fiction. Additionally, Golder's review for SFX is longer than that from The Telegraph - which opens with just retelling the plot. The Guardian review is written in a humourous style and large sections of it are not transferable to Wikipedia. Thus, it seems logical that the appraisal of Golder's review would be longer. Further, it is up to the reader to decide what weighting (in the sense of trust as oppose to word length which I think is how you are using the word "weight" above) to give each review. Reviews are highly subjective - opinion not fact. Who one holds sway with is also highly subjective. The article should just provide appropriate appraisals of reputable reviews, which the SFX one is. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the TV Scoop review is also overlong. I'm looking closely at that and may recommend its removal or drastic trimming; haven't made my mind up which.

Your statement that the Telegraph and Guardian reviews are solely from online versions is incorrect--both reviews appeared in the paper copies. The length of the SFX review is immaterial; it's a minority, specialist publication with a very small circulation (moreover the piece is written by Dave Golder, who as Special Projects Editor is specifically responsible for "SFX stuff that’s not in SFX", so it's quite possible that the review was written solely for the website). Contrary to your claim, this is not a case where we dump all opinions into the article and let the reader decide. We have a neutral point of view policy that requires us to give due weight to all comment. A comment in a broadsheet newspaper bought every day by nearly one million people should be given greater weight than an opinion written in a specialist fan magazine with a low circulation. --Jenny 10:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely they have been given greater weight by being placed first in this section? These are admittedly more well-known sources so have rightly been placed first. However, to accurately reflect the content of the SFX review, I feel more words are needed for this particular appraisal. The newspaper reviews (I have not been out and bought them, so cannot check whether they are in print) are adequately summarised and open the section demonstrating their importance. The SFX review is in more depth and so requires more words to describe its content. Also, your edit did seem to gloss over, (unintentionally, I am sure), the negatives pointed out in that particular review. Giving an overview of these negatives explains why he describes it as "not perfect". SFX, no matter how big its circulation, is a reliable source and 30 000 is smaller but by no means "small". It's available nationwide unlike say a local newspaper or parish magazine. To respond to your point, the review will have been written for the SFX website for topicality. Being a magazine, they go to print less frequently than the newspapers, so their print reviews are less topical. They started reviewing stuff online because they could review stuff closer to its release. Further, I did not state to "dump all opinions" in the article - I clearly stated "The article should just provide appropriate appraisals of reputable reviews". I merely pointed out it is up to the reader to then decide if they agree with the review or not because it is opinion not fact. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise? I've tightened it up a bit.

Dave Golder of SFX says "If, while your brain is telling you, "This is crap!" your heart is still doing backflips then it's your kind of episode. "Journey's End" is almost a two fingers up at technobabble; there's certainly tons of it in the episode, but it's largely irrelevant." He praises the action sequences and the portrayal of Donna, Davros, Rose and the Doctor, but remarks that the overcrowding of minor characters made parts of the script seem "underdeveloped" and describes the daleks as "mostly mere cannonfodder". "[The] plot does hang together, but only just". Overall, he describes the episode as "exceptional" but "not perfect"

Five-and-a-bit lines on my monitor against the seven-and-a-half lines of the first version I quoted above. --Jenny 13:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the TV Scoop review, and I don't mind if it's removed, especially now that the positive reviews from several mainstream sources are leading the section. At the time I added the TV Scoop bit, the reviews section was completely dominated by an account of the SFX review which emphasized that reviewer's criticisms while downplaying his positive comments. Now that the SFX bit has been trimmed and we've got reviews from the Times, Telegraph and Guardian, TV Scoop can be deleted if people think it's extraneous or marginal. The best argument for keeping it, I suppose, is that it's representative of the most positive end of the spectrum of reviews for this episode. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Should any of this BBC News story be covered in the article?

I came across this story and although it's from BBC News, I question its reliability and therefore whether it should be mentioned in the article. It reports that fan reaction to the episode was "mixed" - fair enough and true. However, the article appears to base this conclusion on the opinions of the relatively small number of fans who post on Digital Spy's forum. I am not questioning BBC News's or Digital Spy's article's reliability as sources - however, a news story that uses just one fan forum as its source and then implies that this is representative of all fans is questionable. For this reason, I have not added anything to the article using this source. If something were to be included, should it be along the lines of, "BBC News reports that fan reaction to the episode was mixed based on evidence found on Digital Spy's forum" (then the citation)? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And frankly reaction to every episode, whether from critics or fans, is "mixed". No one likes everything. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be covered. It's written by a reliable news source and reports on fan reaction in two fan forums. --Jenny 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Digital Spy is one forum. No mention of another when I read that on Ceefax. Digifiend (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, most if not all of the reports on fan's reactions are reporting "mixed" feelings. I think it ought to be covered especially as it is a BBC story. --Cameron* 12:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Two forums are mentioned in the BBC News Online version of the article. It's possible that the Ceefax version was edited down. --Jenny 10:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity is a bit too long

I've added the trivia tag to the continuity section as, to be honest, it's taking up half the byte count of the page. Whereas discussion about Bad Wolf Bay and the arching plot might be relevant, is the stuff about gas masks in Rise, Tony, or the magnetron? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In a fit of boldness, I deleted it, and the "External references", to see how the article looks without them. --Jenny 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've cut it down a bit. More can be done to reorder it too. U-Mos (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree as I feel it is important to explain these references for the benefit of casual viewers and readers of this article. The continuity points were all clearly referenced and in my opinion strengthened the article. However, the deletionists are in the majority, so I'd be fighting a losing battle if I went up against them. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never really seen the deletionists in the majority here, Wolf; quite the contrary. I often feel like Gunga Din, carrying on NOR discussions here. I've removed some of the unsourced info that appear to be evaluative statements or unsourced OR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In universe

As an experiment, I've moved all the less important in universe stuff (plot, continuity) down to the bottom of the article. Real world information such as the impact of this show is more encyclopedic (not to mention, far less fannish). --Jenny 05:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. However, I've restored the "Synopsis" section to the top, as per most other articles about television episodes. A synopsis of the story is essential for putting the rest of the information in context, plus it isn't really what one would consider "fannish". --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the Continuity section back as well, as it closely relates to the plot. I've pruned it to only contain the relevant plot elements. — Edokter • Talk • 12:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No.1 in the ratings

Just mentioned that the last time a Sci-fi show was No.1 in the weekly ratings was The Bionic Woman - which I know was definitely No.1 for its first episode (July 1976). Any tips on how I'd find a reference for that?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Punishment

"The Doctor forces the other Doctor to stay in the parallel universe as punishment for committing genocide". I disagree. If staying in the parallel universe would be "punishment", then he would punish Rose as well. Thoughts? --217.86.55.212 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. If punishment is getting to kiss and quite likely do all sorts of deliciously obscene things to (and with) Rose Tyler forever in a parallel universe, I say punish me. I'll step up and take the human-o Doctor's punishment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it has its advantages and disadvantages.

Advantage He gets to be with Rose for the rest of his half human life.

Disadvantage He loses his right to travel the universe in his Tardis. Jammy (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"He committed genocide. He's too dangerous to be left alone." Sounds like punishment to me. Inmates get their own televisions, you know. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, see it as you like, I cannot remember the Doctor saying it is punishment as such, but I might be wrong. I rewrote the sentence to "The Doctor forces the other Doctor to stay in the parallel universe so that Rose can influence him in a positive way like she did with the Doctor". That leaves all interpretations open and that's what I can remember what he said was the reason. As Sceptre points out, all the episode tells us is that the Doctor does not want him to run around alone. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, "so that Rose can influence him in a positive way like she did with the Doctor" no, I think that goes a bit too far. Just the first part, where the Doctor makes the second Doctor go to the parallel universe is enough. Anything else is evaluative, and therefore OR.

Would it be notable that the human Doctor's personality is a combination of Donna, the Ninth Doctor and the Tenth Doctor? It is mentioned in the episode. Ninth Doctor by the quote (to Rose) "he's me, when we first met" and Donna by the references to "half-human half Time Lord" and "two-way metacrisis". Even his attire is part Ninth (the t-shirt) and part Tenth (blue suit). Digifiend (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the statement. The hand is that of the Doctor played by Tennant, not Eccleston. Respectfully, Digifiend, you are connecting dots in the absence of citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to his personality, not his physical self. When the Doctor said "that's me, when we first met", he was referring to how he behaved in the Rose episode, up to at least Dalek. I wont argue with the lack of citation point though. Digifiend (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this debate is essentially moral rather than policy-based (!) and there are ways of getting round it (compromising) in the article, I suggest we do them rather than pursue the argument further. That said, I don't view it as punishment :-) As someone says, being given Rose Tyler is rather nice, and more to the point - mentally-ill people who kill, for example, are contained rather than punished, and that's the way I look at it. It's a preventative/therapeutic device rather than a punishment. Prison, equally, isn't supposed to be about punishment in theory, it's about mitigating danger by locking away risks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember the other Doctor protesting in any way. I think 'makes' is a bit strong. Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with what The Doctor actually says to Rose:

"That's me, when we first met. And you made me better. Now you can do the same for him."

The new Doctor doesn't really say much, he obviously realises he's getting a very good deal indeed: to spend his life with the woman he loves. --Jenny 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about, "The Doctor, noting the violent nature of his counterpart, leaves him in the parallel universe so as to contain him, and allow Rose the oppurtunity to change and improve him, as she did for the Doctor." ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

The Doctor sends the new Doctor off to spend the rest of his life with Rose in the parallel universe, telling her: "That's me, when we first met. And you made me better. Now you can do the same for him."

--Jenny 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Julie Gardner on what the new Doctor says to Rose

The words the new Doctor says to Rose are obvious to everybody, and Julie Gardner confirmed this in Doctor Who Confidential for the final episode. She did not merely state that it was her opinion (which she had the option of doing). She stated it as a fact. She is, with Davies, Executive Producer of the series, and also head of drama for BBC Wales. Phrasing this as "opinion" or conjecture is inappropriate in the context. --Jenny 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There was actually a conversation about this on the Doomsday podcast. Julie asked him what the Doctor would say, and RTD (cockteasingly) said "I don't know" and jokingly offered "Rose Tyler, I owe you ten pence". Gardner herself said, and I quote "he said 'I love you'. I will not have it any other way". Sceptre ^(talk) 10:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(To Jenny) I don't agree. Unless the script stated "The Doctor whispers 'I love you' in Rose's ear" or words to that effect (which we obviously don't know), it is ultimately just a matter of opinion. The whole point is that it's left unsaid. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are good dramatic reasons why the phrase goes unsaid, but I didn't know about the exchange in the podcast. I'm going to shut up now because I'm of the "RTD was just winding everybody up when he said Captain Jack was the Face of Boe, and Julie and Phil stitched him up in the podcast" tendency. --Jenny 11:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Did I ever tell you my real name is David Ten-Inch?"

"Kiss me passionately now! The fate of the entire universe depends on it!"

"Give me a kiss and I'll let you sit on my sonic screwdriver."

add your own ideas below. --Jenny 11:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we refocus on the article now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the article, I think that the current wording ("Julie Gardner stated in the accompanying episode of Doctor Who Confidential that she believed these words were "I love you"") is fine. Using the verb "believed" indicates that Gardner was giving her opinion. Whether her opinion as executive producer matters more than anyone else's is best left as an exercise for the reader; however, her opinion is certainly worth noting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)