Talk:The Tenth Planet

Fair use rationale for Image:Regen1.gif

Image:Regen1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode 4

In The Invasion, it sates episodes 1 & 4 are retained in the BBC Archives as Black & White Animation. The Tenth Planet Episode 4 exists in the BBC archives similarly, as a full-length reconstruction. So why in production does it say Only still and/or fragments exist?--The Rogue Leader 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Tenth Planet, but the episodes of Invasion were recently created animations. Only stills and/or fragments exist of the original live-action shots. DonQuixote (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there's a reconstruction is absolutely irrelevant. There are recons for all the missing episodes. Its still missing. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that last edit. I did a quick-and-dirty revert rather than a careful excising -- just meant to cut out the youtube video. DonQuixote (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's cool; it was pretty obvious from your summary. I am *not* OK with these claims that recons and animations, even those commissioned by the BBC, are equivalent to archive holdings of missing episodes. The next step would be rating the mini-recons of Marco Polo, episodes two and three of The Ice Warriors, and Carole Ann Ford and Nicholas Courtney's links for The Reign of Terror and The Invasion. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary is Wrong

I edited the plot summary to be more accurate, but the edits were removed. For example, the Doctor doesn't just decide to visit the Mechanoid city. The Mechanoids don't suddenly appear and capture the Doctor and crew. The Daleks are closing in. A panel opens. A Mechanoid tells the Doctor and his party to come to the city. They don't realize they're prisoners until after they meet Steven.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.72.193 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2015

That's not this story. You're thinking of The Chase (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the plot

The events of The Doctor Falls should not be added to the plot section for this article. They violate several parts of WP:WHO/MOS. First they did not happen in the airing of this story and plot sections stick to what is seen onscreen. This is also part of the WP:INUNIVERSE guidelines. The instructions as to "continuity" which states "This section should only reference previous episodes as future episodes were not required for any understanding of the current episode" also applies. As with past situations (ie, The Name of the Doctor) like this the events of those episodes do not belong in the plot sections like this one. MarnetteD|Talk 01:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with the generality of the statement "future episodes were not required for any understanding of the current episode" - as there are occasions where future episodes may provide more light on something in the episode. Think of the story arcs in the 'new series'.For example, it's not revealed why The Long Game is called the long game till the title is used in the dialogue of Bad Wolf. Or the reason for the Doctor's talk with Amy about remembering him in Flesh and Stone being revealed in The Big bang - and soon. There are probably several other examples where it could be useful to point the reader to a future episode. Having said that - I don't think this is one of those situations - so I'd agree with THIS particular point not being added. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:E5D3:1315:4421:8430 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two different situations. When "The Long Game" was in planning/production, "Bad Wolf" was also in planning/production; and they shared a scriptwriter (Russell T Davies) who was also an exec producer, and could therefore plant these little seeds and be certain that he was the only one that understood it until the big reveal. But when The Tenth Planet was made, "The Doctor Falls" was totally unknown. In 1966, there was absolutely nothing that Kit Pedler, Gerry Davis and Innes Lloyd would have known about a 2017 story. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel that a 'plot summary' is of the work in question - not other works - and incorporating plot outside of the work should be avoided in the plot summary section. Generally if the information is definitely warranted for inclusion in the article at all, it is probably better suited to another section. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)