Jump to content

Talk:The End of Time (Doctor Who)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Continuity Section

NB I've rearranged some of the more specific points into sub-headings of this section, to try and keep things clearer. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, as a starting point, I've removed the stuff about the remote control TARDIS on the grounds that it strays into original research. But I've restored the continuity section that Sceptre removed on the basis that "this type of continuity section is the kind of stuff that gets us in trouble" isn't much of a reason to delete the whole thing. As far as I can see the section as it stands is simply listing things which are self-evidently references to other episodes (either explicitly in the script or in the form of clips). It seems to me that there are two issues here. One, avoiding original research; and two, the suitability of continuity sections in principle. Given that all a lot of the other episode articles seem to have them, it looks like consensus is that they're useful. Personally, I'm not bothered if the section stays or goes, but people are going to keep putting continuity items in unless there's a discussion and some consensus to point them to here. So, please, discuss away. Maccy69 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Doctor Who episodes include Continuity sections. Unless the Doctor Who project has a policy against them I wouldn't go deleting them but critics certainly require episode citations (they massively help with verifiability) and if external reference are available to establish notability that is even better. -- Horkana (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
See WP:WHO#MOS. Continuity sections are tolerated, but are encouraged to be short as possible and to mention everything prosaically, not in a bulleted list. Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes things much clearer. I'm inclined to think that rewriting the section (as has been done) is better than deleting it. Maccy69 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take note that some readers (i.e. me) REALLY appreciate the continuity sections. Big help. Just watch for spoilers. MonikaWikiWholock (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Remote Control TARDIS

Dear all,

Should we not mention that the Doctor is suddenly able to remote control his TARDIS when it is mentioned as a very difficult thing to do in Mark of the Rani (the Doctor being very impressed with the Rani for mastering this technology). I mention this without knowledge of the books and comics where this may have been explored but it has not been seen in the new series until now. There may be more of an explaination for it in part two but its very happening is surely worth mentioning (perhaps in a continuity section with a reference to Mark of the Rani?).

Regards,
Thetictocmonkey 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, he only detaches it from real-time by one second; I'm not sure that that really goes against Mark of the Rani... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, he could have upgraded his TARDIS since Mark of the Rani. It also has a number of other features now that it didn't have previously. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I am aware he has upgraded it but this feature has not been seen on screen and is therefore worth mentioning. I also realised that it was nowhere near as advanced as the Rani but there is a clear connection. Regards, Thetictocmonkey 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that there has been no further contest to my suggestion I have added it to the article. Regards, Thetictocmonkey 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, we need to avoid these continuity sections. They may exist in other articles, but given this is the last TEnnent episode, I suspect that we will likely get it to FA as soon as possible, which these sections are not used in. Secondly, the statement is wrong. The Doctor has remotely operated the TARDIS at least once before in the New Series, namely Utopia (that to lock the TARDIS between the two time periods); the suggestion that there's a connection to non-canon media is tenacious and is strongly bordering on original research which is why these sections are generally discouraged. Now, if a secondary source notes the remote operation and the like, that can be included in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good thing or not, please everyone stop edit warring about that section. If you feel strongly about it, discuss it here first. Regards SoWhy 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss this as part of a general discussion of the continuity section, which I'm about to start, below. For that reason, I'm archiving this bit. Maccy69 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please do not modify" on a discussion from the same day is ridiculous and very much anti-discussion to attempt to close down any room for disagreement in such a short time. You should at least start another section and try to change the subject before asserting this discussion closed.
Other television articles do include continuity sections, so a lot depends on whether other Doctor Who articles generally include them, but even if they do not then we should still try to help a the editor to include his good faith addition in a more appropriate way, rather than deleting. A citation needed tag would be appropriate if you feel this needs external reference.
I've no great interest in the content of the section, perhaps it is not notable but I hate to see an editor who asked for feedback first and then made a good faith effort not even getting a fair chance to correct and improve his work. Even moving the section back to the talk page rather than outright deleting it would have given him a better chance to improve or discuss it and for other editors to try and help with cleanup or find sources. -- Horkana (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to close down discussion, I just thought it would be better to include it in a general discussion of continuity. I thought we were running the risk of getting muddled between original research in particular and continuity sections in general. I don't see the problem in continuing to discuss the specific idea about remote-control TARDIS as part of a general discussion about continuity. Then, it's all in one place under a simple heading "continuity" that we can point editors to in the future. To this end, is it OK if I copy your comment to the section below? Maccy69 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I've removed the archive and made this into a sub-section of the continuity discussion. I've moved your points about this as well, to just below. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Before deleting please advise the editor on how he might rephrase the section on Remote control TARDIS to avoid speculative words. Someone suggested it made an incorrect assertion, it may still have held some truth without being the whole truth (something about "Utopia" was truncated in the edit summary). Again a rephrase might be allow the editor to include the point he was trying to make, and an earlier instance of remote control TARDIS might simply add to his point. I did have a quick look to see if I could find references to help backup the point. You never know, maybe it is Chekov's gun and the remote control will be a plot point in the next episode, or maybe someone just like the idea of the Doctor closing the door like it was a car. -- Horkana (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that nobody other than that particular editor has made a connection between the Doctor remotely locking the TARDIS and the Rani having a different form of remote control in another story. Without a reliable source making this connection, it's synthesis at the very least. For this reason, the section cannot be rephrased to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There's a long discussion about continuity in Doctor Who articles here. Maccy69 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to add: it's extremely unlikely that any media review is going to mention continuity points. Until someone notable writes a book on all of this, the "Fact Files" on the official site are pretty much the only place to look (the "End of Time, Part One" one is here). And it just isn't feasible to have a big section of fan speculation with "citation needed" next to nearly every point. The editor concerned did exactly the right thing by raising it here first, it's just a shame that he didn't wait a bit longer before making the edit. Still, it's good to be bold but you shouldn't be upset if you get reverted. Maccy69 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I take issue with your tone about my edit and my reaction to its unilateral deletion. Your comments are unhelpful and not in good faith. Please try and follow the guidelines above about being polite in this discussion. We are all working together to create the best article we can and insulting other editors is not conducive to this. I was not "upset" about the deletion of my edit, I simply wanted to understand why it had been done and asked the person who undid it to give full reason for it. I am, however, upset by your comments made here in bad faith. I also waited a fair ammount of time before making my edit and it then sparked further discussion and editing which I think we can agree is good and helpful.
Yours in good faith,
Thetictocmonkey —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
OK, that may have been bad phrasing on my part, I apologise. Horkana seemed to be getting upset on you behalf, suggesting that we should leave your edit in, apparently to spare your feelings. I wasn't suggesting that deleting it had made you upset, quite the opposite. I was simply suggesting that reverting someone's edit is normal procedure when it comes to original research. I was also trying to explain why it wasn't practical to leave the edit in and try and rephrase it. For the record, I do think the previous reasons given for removing it are far more debatable - but that the original research trumps all of that, and I wish it had been used as the reason from the start. I also don't think you acted in bad faith and I'm honestly at a loss to see how you deduced that from what I wrote. However, I apologise unreservedly for giving you that impression. Still, I think it's clear that the edit is not suitable for inclusion, so there isn't much more to discuss on this. If you think my reasoning is wrong, you should probably start a new thread below stating why the stuff about remote control TARDISes isn't original research. I'll let other editors debate it with you. If you want, though, I can rescue your original wording and paste it into the this discussion. That aside, that's it from me in this discussion. All the best. Maccy69 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)



Dear Maccy69, I see that I misunderstood you to some extent and I apologise for that. I also accept your apology and I hope their is no more bad feeling between us. It would be great if you paste my edit into here so that it could be discussed and hopefully reworded so it can be included. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and any advice is very welcome.
Blessings and regards,
Thetictocmonkey 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It's easy to get the wrong end of the stick in a written format. No harm done, and there was never any bad feeling on my part. For reference, you can always find old edits in the history, even if they've been reverted, so I found yours here. Here it is, for discussion:
  • The Doctor is shown to remotely control his TARDIS for the first time on screen. In Mark of the Rani he is impressed at the Rani's capability to do this using a Stattenheim remote control. However, the Doctor's remote control capabilities are not nearly as advanced: he is seen only to lock the TARDIS and to place it one second out of sync with time. The Doctor has a Stattenheim remote control in the spin-off media however this is of questionable canonicity.
Personally, I think you're on a hiding to nothing with this particular entry, but I'm bowing out of the discussion. I strongly suggest you read about original research (particularly the section on synthesis) and reliable sources before discussing this. You may also want to read a long discussion on a similar theme here. I think its also worth considering http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Doctor_Who_Wiki, which has different policies to Wikipedia and is more geared towards fans. Cheers. Maccy69 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Id actually say that its not remote control; but rather similar to what the Master did to the Doctors Tardis in 'The Keeper of Traken' putting it a second out of sync. Mainly because the Rani had full remote control of her Tardis; being able to set the cordinates and make it take off. Otherwise you can say the Dr has remote controlled his tardis previously; ie locking the controls in Utopia, clicking of the fingers in forest of the dead; having his tardis land on earth in Voyage of the Damned, or auto locking the tardis like a car in the End of Time, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.195.42 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He Man/Skeletor

the dr called master sceletor a refrance to heman and the MASTERs of the universe that should be on refrance section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.47.180 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-worded your title and added this to the general continuity discussion. I hope that's OK. I think it's true that there's an unambiguous reference to Skeletor in the script. The question is, is it important enough to go in the article? I'm not sure. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I don't. Little in-jokes or just figures of speech like that really aren't notable or important for WP article (and yes, WP is littered with them). GedUK  14:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
WP was littered with them in the good old days. --86.133.229.115 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. While it's a clear He-Man reference, it's an offhand line that doesn't have significance to the plot. Sceptre (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the master calling dr gandalf was notable 4 Last of The Time Lords thats why i said it lol or i wouldnt have hehe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.47.180 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rassilon

Just to be clear, the Doctor did say before the Time Lord President vanished that he was Rassilon. Contrary to an earlier revision, however, there's no Glove of Rassilon – it's a prediction based on a naming pattern of many items associated with Rassilon, but it's unconfirmed. And yes, this Time Lord President being Rassilon is extremely non-trivial – even within the Time Lord timeline, he should've been long, long dead. 86.159.111.21 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't say he was Rasillon, he called him Rasillon. I could call you Rasillon, doesn't mean you are. It's just Russell fanwanking one last time. GedUK  20:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The distinction, insofar as it can be considered important, is why I recommend (and have added) language like 'identified by the Doctor as Rassilon' – indicating that it was the Doctor's claim. Nonetheless, there's little reason to dispute the Doctor's authority in identifying Rassilon. He called him Rassilon for a reason, and the most probable reason is that he was confident he was Rassilon. Elyssaen (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it probably is Rasillon; I'm 99% sure, 99.9% even. But this is Wikipedia, not GallifreyOne or a Dr Who wikia (the name escapes me). It needs a source. I like your 'identified as' solution. GedUK  21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GED, we cannot say he is Rassilon. I think he was comparing him to Rassilon. It is possible the Time Lords resurrected Rassilon to lead them in the Time War. But all this is speculation, not fact. Thetictocmonkey 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Since he is not positively identified as Rassilon in the credits ("The Narrator" for Part One, "Lord President" for Part Two, nothing more), labelling Dalton's character as Rassilon is currently not verifiable. SuperMarioMan (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Thetictocmonkey 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree - I think it is reasonable to note that the doctor called the individual "Rassilon" (in terms of verification, the episode is available for review online on BBC iPlayer). It has the potential to acquire future relevance and is worth cataloguing.

I think that the latest edit on this subject is very good. - Thetictocmonkey 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On Dr Who Condfidential; RTD calls him Rassilon. But as I don't wanna fall foul of die-hard Dr. Who editors (you know who you are!), I'll let someone else add it in if they want. steveking89 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree though. If RTD calls him Rassilon on Confidential, it's as reliable as it can be. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but on the other hand, Dalton was credited as "Lord President" – one has to wonder why... :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 12:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
But that would be speculation again. ;-) Regards SoWhy 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
IMO he's clearly a Rassilon, as the Doctor and RTD call him that. Whether he's the Rassilon is debatable, but naming him as Rassilon is pretty clear cut as fine I think. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've put him as Lord President with a link to Rassilon. Following the credits as far as is correct is what should be done I say. I removed the Narrator name as part 2 makes it pretty clear that that is not his name or title, and was used to cover is role among the Time Lords until yesterday. U-Mos (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It is an obiqutous link, so I removed it; it is already linked in the Continuity section. And he is credited as "The Narrator" in Part One, so I restored that as well. — Edokter • Talk • 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I never saw any reason why we should stick to cast lists where reliable sources are less ambiguous. For example, in "Journey's End", the "Chinese Woman" is called "Anna Zhou". Hence, I'd support calling him "The Narrator/Lord President Rassilon". Sceptre (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Without an explicit reliable source, there is no reason to assume that it may not have been intended as a metaphor, just like the reference to Weeping Angels. RTD also said the hand that picked up the Master's ring was "the Rani" - that too was not literal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if it were a single reference onscreen that would be reasonable. But the guy who wrote the script referred to him as Rassilon several times... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As the previous Rassilon continuity reference did not mention the significance of the name, and would seem very trivial to anyone not already familiar with the character, I have now edited this, still allowing for open interpretation, but now supplying information about who most people seem to assume Timothy Dalton's character was.
--BadWolfTV (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Selfless Master

The article currently says "but at which point the Master, in a selfless of bravery, uses the last of his lifeforce to blast the Lord President back into the Time War" however my reading of the program, which was confirmed by Russell T Davis in COnfidential was that this was an act of revenge against the people that have caused him so much pain for so long. Jasonfward (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the Master's years of evil madness may have been caused by his people, but he was still evil and mad. A selfless act is entirely uncharacteristic. - Thetictocmonkey 21:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
We also don't know that it's the last of his lifeforce. I'd be amazed if he didn't come back at some point. GedUK  21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's face it, he always does!!! Thetictocmonkey 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the article to remove the "selfless act" reference pending the conclusion of this discussion. I left the "last of life force" in however. - Thetictocmonkey 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove that as well. We simply don't know what happens to him or the Time Lords, it just explodes and gone they are... Regards SoWhy 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
"Gone they are", turning into Yoda are you? :p GedUK  22:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Damn, you discovered my secret identity! SoWhy 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, the Master's actions actually aren't uncharacteristic. There is a history of the Doctor and the Master teaming up to defeat a common enemy, something Rusty pointed out on Confidential. Whether it's selfless or not is another matter entirely. Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He He I was the one who added in the selfless part :D --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure if there is a good place for this in the article, but there is a "Sally" on the "Sparrow" line bus 18 minutes into part one. A subtle reference to the episode "Blink", where the main character is "Sally Sparrow". ConnertheCat 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I just saw it, too. "Sparrow lane". Especially with the two women holding their hands like the weeping angels. But do you think "social touring for the over..." (rest I can't read) fits in this possibility?
--85.180.227.49 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (sorry, no en.wiki-account)
There is a definite Blink reference in Part 2; Rassilon makes reference to the "Weeping Angels of old". BBC iPlayer's subtitles capitalise it. Sceptre (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
To be absolutely accurate and pedantic, that's not a reference to Blink (Dalton hasn't seen the episode); if anything, it's a reference to the Weeping Angels 'as featured in'... ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Verity Lambert/ Family of Blood Reference

Sorry, what happend to the VL-Reference? Or did I rd this in an other thread? Call mer Donna, because of hangovers :-) --85.180.227.49 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My note on it was removed as being speculation. I realise there's little evidence for it, but that's because it doesn't really need any, surely? Two of the most important people in the show's history are referenced in the name of a character. It's a bit like someone in a political thriller about the Iraq invasion being called George Blair. So blindingly obvious that no-one is likely to need to confirm or deny it. --Crgn (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's blindingly obvious to dedicated Doctor Who fans, but not necessarily to general viewers of the episode or readers of this article. It seems that someone's restored the explanation for the name using the io9 reference, which I think is fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Donna's Wedding

The entry states "giving Wilf and Sylvia Noble a winning lottery ticket to give to Donna". Was it confirmed anywhere (this ep or confidential etc)that it was a winning ticket? Swampy 139.168.137.237 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember it being confirmed, but the implication was that it is. You know, the Doctor being able to travel in time and whatnot. Sceptre (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
RTD makes it pretty clear it was in Confidential, Thetictocmonkey 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


SFX Goof

Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but I noticed a special effects error in part 2, about 29 minutes in. Dr Who Confidential showed that the two Vinvocci aliens' green skin is not make-up - their heads were green and spiked, but the rest of the skin was the normal pink tone. Presumably it is digitally added. At about 29 minutes in, when the Doctor and Wilfred are talking and the Master's transmission about the white point star starts. The action cuts to the two Vinvocci on the bridge, and you can see that their skin is pink instead of green. 86.20.198.199 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-edited filming of an episode shown on Confidential does not constitute a 'goof'. It simply indicates that some of the green was added digitally rather than with makeup. It's only a "SFX Goof" if the pink skin is unintentionally visible in the final edit of the episode for broadcast. I'm not sure that it is particularly noteworthy in an article about an episode to address specific SFX techniques used, unless the techniques used are themselves particularly noteworthy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about the final broadcast edit - at 29 minutes into The End Of Time Part 2, the alien's skin is pink instead of green. I referenced Confidential just to illustrate that it was a SFX error as opposed to a make-up error. 86.20.198.199 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, around 29:15. Not convinced that it's worth mentioning in the article, unless some notable source has commented on this 6 seconds of the episode. Has no significance to plot.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Why is the name of this episode presented in italics without quotation marks, while the names of other episodes in this series are presented in normal face with quotation marks?Ordinary Person (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this is a two-parter with one title. DonQuixote (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus below. (Closed as an involved editor, due to a huge requested move backlog, and there is clearly consensus here. Feel free to revert if you disagree.)(non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


– No primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rassilon in Infobox

There is no clear reason why Rassilon is one of the few characters not linked in the Infobox. The character is clearly Rassilon as it is not only stated in script but also confirmed by the production team. I do not see WP:EGG applying, as it says that piped links should be "as intuitive as possible" - here the "Lord President" credit is only being short for the "Lord President Rassilon" - so it is intuitive as possible - much like Martha Smith-Jones. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There are several discussions above that you should familiarize yourself with. Next your "intuitive" statement only works if the reader is a long time watcher of the show and that violates WP:INUNIVERSE. A reader who has not watched the show will have no idea whatsoever why the link goes to that article. BTW the Doctor and Borusa have been Lord President since Eassilon held the title - that doesn't mean that they be linked in the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly you are in violation of WP:3RR with three reverts on this article in just over 4 hours [1][2][3] - I'm not reporting it this time as I don't think that it would be constructive to resolve this - but a friendly reminder to check yourself. You raised 3 different policies in your revert commits: WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:EGG and WP:INUNIVERSE - none of which apply. I would also suggest you re-read the discussions above as I don't think they say what you think they say (I'm not going to pick apart points from 7 years ago when I can't see any points that actually apply here). The "intuitive" statement was made only in regards to the WP:EGG MoS point you raised - my arguement that the piped link is "intuitive as possible" according to WP:EGG definition holds in spite of whether it is WP:INUNIVERSE or not. An WP:INUNIVERSE reference does not counteract the same fact made by WP:OUTUNIVERSE sources, it supports it. And of course the Doctor and Borusa should not be linked in the Infobox from Lord President - that seems to be a strawman argument designed to confuse the point. Dresken (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
You need to read WP:EW and note that it takes four reverts not three and also it takes two for an edit war to occur. All three policies noted in the summaries apply in this situation. I took part in the discussions above so I know what they say. You have provided zero evidence that any reader who is not familiar with the series could possibly "intuit" why the link in the infobox would go to that article. It is properly covered later in the plot section where it belongs and where it isn't a WP:EGG. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay I have tried a new approach to this to try and work within policy. I know you may not like it but I do think it is more informative. Dresken, I know that you are a good editor with the best interests of the project at heart. My apologies for any offense in my posts. MarnetteD|Talk 02:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for that mistake with 3RR (it has been a while since I've looked at it. I actually fell victim to the same point I was trying to make at the same time - that sometimes policies don't actually say what we think they do from the shortlinks) - I've struck out my comment as to indicate that I acknowledge it is simply non-factual. Thank you for seeing through that though to the underlying point - I'm absolutely fine with the tooltip concept - I mean I think either way is totally adequate to convey the necessary information - but the tooltip does give extra context as a bonus. Good work for coming up with a great compromise. I'm also sorry if I offended. I think it is also pertinent to thank @86.171.65.124: for their original improvement that has prompted this version. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that we could work things out Dresken. Thanks for your understanding. Cheers and keep enjoying new (and old) episodes of our travels with the Dr :-) MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The End of Time (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The End of Time—Bonus Edition

The BBC is about to show The End of Time—Bonus Edition which has both parts put together. What is the Bonus of the Bonus Edition? WordwizardW (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_End_of_Time_(Doctor_Who)/Archive_2&oldid=1233179544"