Talk:Turn Left

Doctor Who Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turn Left article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Doctor-lite

I've added that this is the Doctor-lite episode - it was already mentioned on the Midnight article. Digifiend (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? What is Doctor lite?--Cameron (T|C) 14:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An episode without the Doctor. 82.17.105.0 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was removed by Edokter, then re-added later. It wasn't speculation, as he claimed, as DWM was already out. Fact is, if I needed a source, it shouldn't have been on the Midnight page either. In any case, Doctor Who Magazine has now been cited. Digifiend (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does DWM use the term "Doctor-lite"? I'm sure the term, originally referring to Love and Monsters, came from an official source. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but SFX does. I see the phrase Doctor-lite has been removed from both the Midnight and Turn Left articles. Digifiend (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Moffat uses the term "Doctor-lite" in an interview in next week's Radio Times - it's page 11, second column. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new boss - it doesn't get any more official than that. Thus the rewording wasn't actually required, but never mind, it's fine as it is. You've done a lot of articles 86.136, you really should register. Digifiend (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I think 86.136 works as a name on its own. A bit like 'Seven of Nine' in Star Trek Voyager. :o)193.36.79.207 (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Left

This article reads: The episode, filmed at the same time as "Turn Left", is "Doctor-lite", while "Midnight" is "Donna-lite".[2] And is copied straight from the "Midnight" page. I assume that it should read something more like This episode, "Turn Left", is "Doctor-lite" and was filmed at the same time as "Midnight" which is "Donna-lite" Unfortunately I can't edit the page as it is protected. 90.198.154.95 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it for you.:) JordanAshley (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that 90.216.50.233 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNIT?

This page has been added to the UNIT Stories template, and the template has been added to this page. Is there any evidence that this is a UNIT story? U-Mos (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Doctor Who Magazine's preview for the episode shows a woman in UNIT uniform standing in front of the TARDIS. --OZ OO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the uniforms used are clearly UNIT ones, including the logo. Also a number of minor recurring UNIT cast members reappear, although surprisingly, not Colonel Mace. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that told me. Should this not be mentioned in the article then? U-Mos (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's in. --OZ OO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 13:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only every issue was solved in ten minutes... U-Mos (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Jones

Is is safe to assume that her character will be returning in this episode? According to this, she "will appear in five episodes of Series Four". As she has only appeared in 2 so far, and this is the third from last episode, it is logical that she will reappear here. Gammondog (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, she's not in this one. She's appeared in three this year. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, you're right. My mistake. :D Gammondog (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha is killed when the Judoon hijack the Hospital where she works, although she is not shown in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.196.62 (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As are the cast of the Sara Jane Adventures.

Which is interesting, because it places SJA Series 1 in 2008 instead of 2009. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dating in Turn Left is problematic (not least because it's on an alternative time-stream where things may not tally) but also because Christmases come and go to indicate the passage of time, so you'd have towork out precisely how many pass us by,and of course definitively place the year of the 'turn right or turn left' incident. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, being a very strong proponent on these discussion pages for placing SJA between January 2009 and April 2010 (The Lost Boy therefore being fifteen months, not five months after Invasion of the Bane), I vote for the idea that, in the alternate-timeline in this episode, SJA indeed starts as early as (October) 2008, because that's possible. In "our" timeline, though, January 2009 remains the starter [User: Stripey]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.40 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is correct that Martha Jones is to appear in five episodes, but those do not include Turn Left, She already appeared in three: 'The Sontaren Strategem', 'The poisen Sky' and 'the Doctor's Daughter', and is set to appear in 'The Stolen Earth' and 'Journeys End' The First Darklord (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full synopsis

I gave up my enjoyment of the episode to add facts as I saw them in the episode, but I think I missed a few points...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the episode refs, aren't we allowed to cite the episode itself in the plot synopsis? It seems like the most reliable source to me...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can cite it. As a primary source, it just doesn't need <ref></ref>. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three parter?

The articles for The Stolen Earth and Journey's End show the episodes as a two parter (202a and 202b), as this episode continues into The Stolen Earth shouldn't Turn Left be 201a and the following episodes 201b and 201c? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the episode end with "To Be Continued"? (I haven't seen it yet). Also, don't the numbers refer to the production codes as listed here? --SoWhy ^Talk 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember if it did say TBC, however the end of episode would most definately fall into the category 'Cliffhanger' and watching the following episode without seeing this one would not be wise. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not end with "To Be Continued", so unlike Utopia to LotTL, it is NOT a three-parter. It is a 2 parter like Bad Wolf - PotW and AoG-Doomsday. 82.12.88.229 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is or is not viewer discretion, pending confirmation of either in DWC. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the first of three parts as it's self-contained and after all, Rose doesn't go into the TARDIS at the end of the story (so I don't think she's a current companion as the main DW page here says). However the ending with the cloister bell tells me the episode could not conveniently be repositioned, so that mitigates its being part of the three-parter. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand how it could be concidered self contained, the fact the stars are 'going out', the fact Rose says to Donna that they need both the Doctor and Donna to be alive to stop it happening, the fact that the episode ends with a whopping great cliff-hanger; all these contribute to the fact that this episode has not been concluded. You can't watch this episode and be happy you've seen a complete story from start to finish. "It's the end of the universe" says the Doctor... oh well, that's that then, don't need to watch next week... I don't think so! :D ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Just like the last time'

As much the holocaust suggestion is much more reasonable, Cribbins was in Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 AD, which involved having human (robotized) slaves working for them. In concentration camps, maybe? :o 80.176.145.76 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds plausible, could very well be (as a history student, WW2 jumped to my mind first...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbins character never witness the spin-off film's plot. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only on-screen, he didn't. Didn't the actual witnesses have mouths? :p 80.176.145.76 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't alive in 2150 - it doesn't sound so plausible now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. He could've hitched a ride on the tardis..? (arguement falling down around me :p) 80.176.145.76 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only collapsing slightly. heh. It's a good theory, but not quite as plausible as the holocaust one :P...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*cries* (IPs need minor edit btuttons)80.176.145.76 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's to stop vandalism, why not create an account?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt they were hinting at a WW2 style genocidel scenario. I can't see any other reason why he'd say "It's happening again". ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a hint at a "Final Solution". The attempt to link this to the Daleks film involving Bernard Cribbins as a London policeman is fanciful. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Wolf

This statement is currently included in the continuity section.

This episode marks the return of the term "Bad Wolf" which was used throughout the first series in 2005, although while Rose Tyler 'was' Bad Wolf in the first series, in this episode, The Doctor says that the term signifies the end of the universe.

As far as I understood it, the phrase 'Bad Wolf' simply was an afirmation to the Doctor that the information about the end of the universe was genuine. The Doctor new Rose had given it because no one else other than Rose would've used that term. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought too...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who knows the implications of travel between Pete's World and his world. If Rose has reappeared, it is the end of the universe. "Bad Wolf" is Rose's manner of identifying herself to Doctor Who without telling anybody else here name. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monster files - bad wolf

This is fairly trivial, but if you watch the monster file about the trickster's brigade, at 2:55 on the game board, to the top right of the tile stating "choose wisely" there is a tile with "bad wolf" on it. There doesn't seem to be any relevance but it seems interesting nonetheless. Eagyle (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 20:48 Standard GMT 21/06/08[reply]

I'm afraid I can't follow you. Where does it say so? What is this "monster file"? --SoWhy ^Talk 09:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster File is a video on the official website with Captain Jack telling people about the monsters that appeared in the episode that just aired. 86.156.40.244 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't watch it to confirm as I'm not from the UK. But in any case, I don't think it particularly noteworthy for this article. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Rose's voice?

From the moment she appears in the episode, it looks like she's biting her lip and trying to lisp at the same time. She sounds very different from S1/S2 - thoughts? 83.226.223.63 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant to improving article? --Cameron (T|C) 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too...Collagen injections maybe? Her lips looked very very full...Totally not relevant to improving article though 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice a slight lisp, it wasn't much of a difference, but it was there. Possibly she's had some kind of surgery or similar, or else she's just developed it in the last year or so. DeadDeers (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read on a forum that Piper had to go back to S1&2 and relearn Rose's voice and even then got it poorly (HINT HINT : this should be sourcable and included in the Production section if a reliable source can be found). --MASEM 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she has a lisp throughout. I wondered if she'd had her teeth fixed...then I saw them! She claimed in an interview in Confidential that she 'had to go out and buy boxed sets of her first two series'. This is suspicious, surely she would have been given complimentary copies (or maybe Chris Evans got those in the divorce). DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private Harris

It says in contiunty (sorry for spelling errors but I'm in a rush)that the person playing Harris in Sontaran Stragegem and Poison Sky reprised his role. Yet he dies in Stagegem and Poion. He and Private Grey, during the attack on the factory, while hypnotitised step forward and announce they are reporting for duty, to the sontarans, the sontaran passing close to them turns while still walking in the same dirction and shoots them As the shots didn't actually hit them on-screen (the cameara leaves them just as the bolts would have impacted them) some may argue that he wan't killed. but it;s clear he was as who else would the Sontaran have shot. all the other unti officers were infront of the Sontarans, so why did this one shoot backwards if not at them. plus he shot eaxctly 2 shots and in their direction What dya thin? --I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance is pre-Sontaran. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Harris's appearance in this Episode is at the conclusion of the alternate events of Runaway Bride, which occurred over a year before The Sontaran Stratagem/Poison Sky. 208.45.74.83 (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he appears in an alternate timeline and thus we have no idea if there even was an attack on the factory or anything. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That settles it. In order to save Private Harris, it is necessary that the Doctor die. We should have been rooting for Racnoss. -Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

Two-parter or three-parter: Straw poll

RTD said in the latest DWM that whether the finale comprises of two or three episodes is a grey area which is dependent on both viewer choice and watching the episodes. Because there's a dispute, we should see what the consensus is on this matter.

Two parts

No 'To be continued', as there has been in previous multi-part stories. You could make an argument that "The Doctor's Daughter" is part of a three-parter, by the same logic. --OZ OO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 20:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. --Cameron (T|C) 20:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a two parter, hence the "next time", not "to be continued" caption.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree by the same argument. See also a comment I have made in the three parts section. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per OZ's reasoning. Also, the production codes suggest that Turn Left is the prologue for the finale, which is The Stolen Earth and Journey's End. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same reasoning, if you remember up until this point last year Utopia was listed as a single parter. When the 'to be continued' was seen it was put together with The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Times Lords as a three parter. As it showed clips from the next episode it should be assumed it is a single episode unless some official source lists it as a three parter KP-TheSpectre (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Next time" instead of "To be continued". Plus the stories do not have any contagious continuity... It's a side-step into Donna's personal parralel universe. In any case, we should see nextqweeks intro to see how the episodes tie in. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All "Multi-parts" have the "next time" clip at the end of the credits to prevent spoilers. Turn Left had this before the credits, so the finale must be a two-parter. 89.242.170.146 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three parts

The ending was structured as such, with the ending more dramatic than Fear Her. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Comment. I partially agree with that analysis. The end of Fear Her referring to a storm approaching is certainly less dramatic than the end of the universe. On the other hand, the ending of Fear Her featured the only ever super-long preview that showed footage from both of the last two episodes (although footage of Doomsday, such as a woman being exterminated, was quite minimal). We can certainly agree that the ending was approximately as dramatic in the before-preview sense as Utopia, and far more so than Boomtown, by far the least dramatic episode 11 of all in its ending. Nonetheless, I don't think the level of drama is the key thing, and I side with the two parts view. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether it counts for anything, but this week's TV Times (21st - 27th) says that it is a three-parter. I'm inclined to agree that it is a three-parter, given that this episode seems to have started the ball rolling for next week's episode. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My case is above for it being a three parter - furthermore, it's not just the ending, but what I would call a major part of the plot line of the episode has yet to be concluded. The 'stars are going out' part of the plot is presumably still a problem the doctor has to sort out and ultimately what is meant by the 'end of the universe'. I think I would find it confusing seeing further episodes without seeing this one first. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defer decision until next week.

Voting really is evil

In my opinion it's a three-parter, but Russell T. Davies says it may or may not be a three-parter depending on how you look at it. I think Russell T. Davies' opinion counts more than the result of any straw poll, and even (though I find this hard to believe) more than my own opinion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But RTD doesn't have an opinion... so how can he override out consensus? — Edokter • Talk • 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time

Its not 45 Minutes. Its 49 minutes and 25 seconds. (See here) Please correct the infobox. Thanks Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rose a companion?

She doesn't even see or talk to the Doctor. I don't think she should be considered a compnaion. Just a guest star. Pdb781 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be that picky then it should be aDonna Noble episode not a Doctor Who episode because Catherine Tate was onscreen throughout the episode whereas The Doctor was onscreen for five minutes total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.52.145 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Companions are listed in the opening credits after David Tennant, right? Billie Piper is there. So Rose is a Companion in this episode, no need to argue about it. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she can be classed as a companion in this episode, because a companion by definition is a person who accompanies another. And here Rose does not accompany the Doctor anywhere. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about normal companions but companions in Dr. Who and I think it is covered by the definition. As I said above, the BBC placed the actress portraying her in the spot where only the Doctor and his companions have been listed before and thus they certainly wanted to indicate that she is a Companion. Otherwise, they would have placed her with Donna's family and the others at the end credit sequence. Similarly Jack Harkness is a companion in Bad Wolf and The Parting of the Ways despite not being with the Doctor for most of the episode. --SoWhy ^Talk 11:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just having the name before the credits does not make her a companion. By that criterion, Kylie would be a companion! Also, I am not sure that the production team of the day is necessarily in a position of authority - after all, they will move on in a year or so! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Miss 'Astrid' Minogue was concidered a companion, albeit she was only a brief one. Before she (sort of) died, she had pretty much signed up for the job. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, official sources and Wikipedia as well consider Astrid Perth a companion. As long as you cannot make a case against the BBC's choice, I don't see any reason to change anything. After all, by your reasoning, Donna is no Companion as well, as her contact with the Doctor is minimal at best and most of the episode she is not with him or even knows him! --SoWhy ^Talk 12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're going off-track with this Kylie thing. Rose still hasn't met the Doctor by the end of this episode. She's no more a companion then she was in "Partners in Crime". Pdb781 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She has met him before multiple times, she just didn't talk to him in this episode. But seeing that the official credits treat her differently in Partners in Crime and in Turn Left, the BBC must have meant to see her as a companion in Turn Left. As stated above, there is no reason to think anything different, considering the definition: "Companion, in the long-running BBC television science fiction programme Doctor Who and related works, is a term used to describe a character who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor." That fits Rose pretty well. But on the other hand, it wouldn't fit Astrid, as she never traveled with him. But she is a companion, because the BBC wanted her to be one. And Rose is one for the same reason, I don't see any evidence that there can be doubt or that would argue against it. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course she's a companion. She will be so until she whips the rubber mask off at the end of episode 13 and reveals that she was really The Meddling Monk all along. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...travels with [which she hasn't since "Doomsday"] and shares the adventures[which she also hasn't since "Doomsday"] of the Doctor." The status of Rose and the Doctor's relationship is identical to what it was in "Midnight". They haven't been in contact since her departure, and at the end of "Turn Left" this is still the case. By the logic used here then Sarah Jane should be considered a companion in "School Reunion", but she isn't, even though the evidence is far stronger.Pdb781 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox

Is it worth mentioning that the last time the TARDIS turned red like that was because The Master turned it into the Paradox Machine?71.150.251.72 (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it's a bit of a vague connection. The Cloister Bell is enough. U-Mos (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can some one change something for me?

In the Continuity section it says

Sarah Jane Smith is mentioned for the first time since her appearance in "School Reunion"

She was mentioned the The Girl in the Fireplace when Mickey was talking about all the woman the Doctor says he has met.

Or is this just not important enough to change and it should be left? 86.157.161.103 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thanks for reminding me of that. Will change it now. U-Mos (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of man in terraced house in Leeds

The article says "Middle Eastern", but having watched the episode twice, I was left with the strong impression he was meant to be Italian. His accent is not conclusive, but use of the word 'palazzo' to describe the kitchen, for example, and speaking of his 'mamma' do seem to point to an Italian origin. To whoever put 'Middle Eastern', can you provide any evidence, from the episode itself or from the production info/publications/press releases that would support your description? Otherwise, either the adjective should be removed (since it is not stated where he and his family are from), or changed to "Italian" or "Mediterranean". Scyrene (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree - I think his actions were "stereotypical" of an Italian or Mediterranean person. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reasoning. Also, Donna calls him "Mussolini" once when she is fed up with his singing. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-worded the sentence earlier to remove the "Middle Eastern" phrase. If you want to re-instate it with Italian, that's fine with me. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good rewording. Let's keep it that way, his name is in the Infobox anyway as "Rocco Colasanto" if I see that correctly, which is enough to show that he is meant to be Italian. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character is obviously supposed to be Italian, but the reader can infer that (as do we) from his name. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bee disappearance

"Sylvia Noble mentions that the bees are disappearing, which has been mentioned by Donna in "Partners in Crime", "Planet of the Ood" and "The Unicorn and the Wasp". In reality, the bees are indeed disappearing." No, they are not. There was a press fad on some bee colonies collapsing (Colony Collapse Disorder) for unknown reasons, but overall, bee populations are just fine. 83.191.175.124 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, as the statement is unsourced (and hardly relevant to the article anyway), I've removed it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on CCD is ridiculous: "In the U.S., at least 24 different states as well as portions of Canada have reported at least one case of CCD".

At least one case? There must be fifty states in America where there is at least one case of a man declaring himself to be Napoleon. I've got serious doubts about that article and the alleged syndrome, and in any case it obviously has nothing to do with Doctor Who. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concealed links

It's bad style to conceal the names of articles in links to events, so I suggest that instead of the form "[[article name|phrase describing event in alternative timeline]]" we stick to "phrase describing event in alternative timeline ([[article name]])". As well as clearly showing what we're referring to before the link is clicked, this style translates well into hard copy. Wiki is a technology we're using to construct an encyclopedia, it isn't necessarily the only form in which the encyclopedia will be used. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly agree, however, the form of "(as referenced in [link])" is also rather clunky. — Edokter • Talk • 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parenthetical link, "([[article name]])" , is sufficient. With an appropriate preamble (the current version reads "The narrative turns to the alternative history created by Donna's choice, far bleaker than the established course of events") the meaning of the links in parentheses will be clear to the reader. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]