Talk:Utopia (Doctor Who)

Editing

Please can we remain calm in the rush to edit the article and do it properly (ie correct spellings, punctuations and so on). Also there has been no mention of Saxon until the trailer for next week's episode so it doesn't need a major mention until the end of the article.

Also feel free to post in here first to build a consensus, I'm guessing there are a few conflicts at the moment.AlanD 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably ought to be re-added now that the Sun has turned out to be completely spot on :-) 91.84.13.71 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sun claimed that the Professor would reveal himself to be the Master when he regenerated. It turned out to be a little more complicated than that. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Publicity

David Tennant reports "The Face of Boe isn't lying, but there isn't really another Time Lord kicking about. It's a bit more complication than that. Yeah, stay tuned, yeah. But also, the Face of Boe story isn't finished yet either" during an interview by Michael Parkinson on 5th May 2007. ,

Torchwood

• I think we should include some reference to the fact we will find out what happened to Jack at the end of Torchwood as we know there will have to be a partial explination at least. Walters1 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's a note from Russel T. Davies in the latest DWM saying that Jack will simply 'appear' in the TARDIS ('like a conquering hero') and Torchwood itself will not be heavily mentioned, if at all. How he got into the TARDIS itself may well be discussed, of course. Radagast 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

'Jack was last seen walking towards the (off-screen) TARDIS which disappeared at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days.' Yeah quick thing he didnt walk he just smiled and looked around.

This:

Continuity

• Captain Jack was last seen at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days looking off-screen while the familiar sounds of a TARDIS are heard in the background.

Should be removed, as there is no explination of how this relates to the continuity of the episode?

But it expains how he turned up in Cardiff, he was left on the gamestation at the end of parting of the ways.

Please start all responses with an indent (sentence above) and please sign all posts with four tildes. Just because one person hasn't signed their post, doesn't mean you all don't have to - Weebiloobil 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• This episode marks the furthest the TARDIS has gone into the future.

Should add a note (and external reference) that the year 100 Trillion is considered to be the fourteenth cosmological decade (10¹⁴ years), and marks the end of the The Second Age of the Universe - The Stelliferous Era of the five Ages of the Universe. The descriptions given throughout the episode are fairly accurate for what are hypothesized for the end of The Stelliferous Era. 32.97.110.142 19:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Short story "Utopia"

"Utopia is also the name of a short trips story featuring the Seventh Doctor." I think explanation or link to what short trips is would be useful. Otherwise it makes no sense. 220.237.81.74 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it also be worth mentioning in the Trivia section that Ace used to refer to the Seventh Doctor as (the) "Professor"?--Crushtor 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacobi in this ep?

What is our reason to believe that Derek Jacobi's character shows up in this episode as opposed to The Sound of Drums? The Daily Mirror story merely says "toward the end of the series", and the official site's story doesn't say anything about which story he's in (except that he's "caught in a desperate bid to save the human race"). Was he seen in filming for this episode or something? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see: it's in the latest DWM. My bad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia: I am NOT The Doctor

Tennant and Jacobi are not wearing the same outfit at all, and the Tennant scene is almost certainly from Human Nature/The Family of Blood, a story in which The Doctor believes he's someone else, and which is set in a period which matches the Doctor's outfit. Kelvingreen 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Triva is advised against. ADBandicoot (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rumours

The article, in the published rumours section, says this:
The Sun has reported that the Professor (Sir Derek Jacobi) is the Master in disguise, and that this will be revealed when he regenerates. The Sun has also reported that John Simm (who is in the succeeding two episodes) will be playing the Master.

Whilst this could very well be true, it should really be accompanied by a note stressing that this is only a rumour. The article makes it sound very much like this is true. Perhaps a note such as, 'However, this has not been verified by the production team. The Sun has been known to get such rumours wrong in the past.', would do? - Weebiloobil 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sun has made many false predictions about Doctor Who. I don't see why we even include their rumors. --Phoenix Hacker 03:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sun cannot be considered as a reliable publication. American contributors on DW pages might not understand the populist nature of British tabloids, which are generally derided as sensationalist drivel by anyone interested in serious research. The Sun will pedal rumours because they sell papers, not because they are true. Some inevitably are (can't be wrong all the time), but better to wait for a reliable publication such as Radio Times or one of the broadsheets.Gwinva 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the rumors. Encyclopedias do not have "rumors" sections. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably ought to be re-added now that the Sun has turned out to be completely spot on :-) 91.84.13.71 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sun claimed that the Professor would reveal himself to be the Master when he regenerated. It turned out to be a little more complicated than that. Gallifreyan Summoner 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Citiation

"This episode also sees the return of a monster from the Patrick Troughton era. Many believe it to be the Macra." Says who? This needs citation (Black Dalek 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)).

As I have mentioned in the discussion for The Lazerus Experiment, the Macra did appear in Gridlock. The BBCi trailer apparently (I managed to miss it :( ) features a scene of a giant crab (what the Macra look like in Gridlock) next to what looks like the deaging device from The Lazerus Experiment. If it is the Macra, and the deaging device, the scene could feasibly be from this episode, as this episode is set in the same time as The Lazerus Experiment. (Whoops, maybe it's not. However, there are certain speculations about a Mr. Saxon, so I might be right after all). Nevertheless, it is just speculation - Weebiloobil 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see "many believe..." or "some say..." and its companion "while others..." in a Wikipedia article, please remove the silly thing in its entirety. Such vague weaseling is not appropriate to Wikipedia. Make the editor who inserted the claim source it properly. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rift

The doctor says that the rift has been active, does this not make reference to The last 2 Torchwoods of series 1

Actually the entire series. 82.32.48.236 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but mostly the last two episodes, in which the rift was especially active. (This is me straining not to insert massive speculation to Talk page based on the clip!) ;) -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Utopia image

I'll be removing the image again in a minute. The onus is on those seeking to include, not remove.

• There's no source for the image, stating that this actor appears in x episode only... so this image must be from x *isn't* good enough. Without a source it could just as well be from "Last of the Timelords" (not all casting is announced -- take for example Starbuck's death in BSG, nobody knew she would return in the finale).
• Images must contribute significantly to an article, that's policy, the image isn't even discussed... see WP:NFCC. An image and a caption isn't good enough when there's no plot/etc to compliment and provide critical commentary.

Unless a verifiable source is provided I will remove this image aggressively according to Wikipedia policy, those be the rules. Remember: the onus is yours, not mine (WP:V). Matthew 13:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is: this is the only episode that Sir Derek Jacobi appears in. Therefore, any picture of him, saying this episode's name or not, is from this episode. See? Logic overrides NOR. Protection has been requested of the pre-war (ie my) version, so I'll revert back to that. You're warring, I'm keeping the status quo.--Rambutan (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, Matthew's aggressive removal (his words not mine) of the image is against consensus, and arguably vandalism.--Rambutan (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on those seeking to include, not remove. I don't have to establish consensus... you do! Matthew 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have a source that this specific frame appears in this specific episode nor is there content to make it NFCC compliant. I'm enforcing policy, you're violating it. It appears the page has been protected -- but not on the version you want. Addendum: See Wikipedia:There is no common sense, your logic isn't good enough. Matthew 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re Matthew's first point, I think Rambutan establishes a very strong balance of probability; enough to be acceptable. Re Matthew's second point, this is more finely balanced. Is the image significantly illustrative of content in the article, or merely decorative? I think it's not a slam dunk, but since Derek Jacobi is the guest star for this episode, and since (at least at a very strong level of probability), the picture is illustrative of what he is portraying in this episode, I would let it through.

In any case, does it really matter? It's only a couple of weeks before the episode goes out, and then there will be no issue here. -- Jheald 14:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (responding to Matthew's request at WT:FAIR for external opinion).

It matters as Wikipedia takes copyright seriously -- if we had anything describing his character then it would likely be fair use. Matthew 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source is that that SirDJ is in that episode alone, and that is logically true. I've requested that the page be changed to "my version", since that was the pre-war one, and the fact that it was protected at the wrong version was due to when it was protected, not divine approval of your scheme.--Rambutan (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's... an essay... and it says

When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.

It's already agreed by every one except you that this is Jacobi's only appearance - if anyone can check the casting on DWM 380 for TSOD/LOTTL, that'd be good. Edit warring isn't in the interests of the pedia either. Will ^(talk) 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You and Rambutan agreeing isn't everybody. Matthew 14:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I count me, Sceptre and JHeald in support of the picture, and you against it. That's how consensus works - we don't need the entire population of Manchester to have a referendum.--Rambutan (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, consensus says that when protection is lifted - or before if we can persuade Majorly - the image should be replaced?--Rambutan (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use a picture that we know is in Utopia? Like Jack dangling from the TARDIS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.173.62 (talk • contribs)

Good idea!--Rambutan (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean reinstated rather than replaced ... yes, that doesn't seem inappropriate to me. But let's see whether anybody else comes along. Jheald 14:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did mean reinstated - sorry!--Rambutan (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use the image with some critical commentary. Just a little bit on the story behind it. Who took it? What is it of? Other information. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The image appears to be entirely lacking in commentary and importance to the article. Is the need to see the role severely impacting the article? It is not, from the looks of it. The image would seem to be decorative, something not allowed per the fair-use criteria.-M^ask? 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the finer details of the image are not discussed, I have marked the FUR as invalid, as it relied on the idea that the image "represents the plot of the episode", which is of course nonsense. As much as I'd like to see an episode resolving around Derek JAcobi holding a cup... 81.104.175.145 10:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected request

{{Editprotected}} Remove 'subscript text' below the tags, is ugly. Riana ⁂ 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And edit according to the consensus of the topic above.--Rambutan (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand either editprotected request. Also, this page was just protected; it could probably use a little cool-off period. If there are specific problems that can be easily address (e.g., typo fixes, etc.), please feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Just realised that ref 4 can be used to cover rene zagger's apperence in this ep. Could admin update it please. Also, you might want to change the companion format in the infobox to match prevous episodes. Thanks Willow177 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{edit protected}} Can we change the opening word Utopia to "Utopia" as it's an episode not as serial.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another request: The John Bell listed in the cast is a different one to John Bell (actor). Can someone please remove the link? --OZOO (vote saxon) 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy

In the Torchwood episode, the TARDIS appears in Jack's office, and in this episode, he has to run across the plaza to get onto it...what's the deal with this? Kuralyov 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple. We don't see it arriving, we only hear it. It's quite logical for Jack to hear it in the hub if it has materialised directly above him (ie in the plaza). He rushes outside in a great hurry. Where's the continuity problem there? Gwinva 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

- You don't only hear the TARDIS arriving, you also see things blowing around (which usually accompanies the TARDIS when it materializes, which means it was in close proximity to Jack, i.e. in the same room. Also, only seconds pass from when Jack leaves Gwen in his office to hearing the TARDIS materialize/dematerialize – not enough time for Jack to grab a bag, get out of the base, and run to the TARDIS.71.58.249.160 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The TARDIS landed ontop of the invisble lift seen in Torchwood so maybe the wind came down from there and blew everything about.

There's also the team's reaction to it, though- Gwen asks if they saw him, and they say no, so she instantly concludes "something's taken him, Jack's gone" rather than "Oh, he must've taken the lift, then". It does seem a little iffy, but it should probably stay out of the article, at the very least until Utopia has been aired. --77.99.30.226 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he really does have a Personal Teleportation Device.--OZOO (vote saxon) 11:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe he used the invisible lift, they wouldn't see him because he is invisible and they came in through a different door (the main entrance to the hub). I know it seemed it was in the hub but it could have blown down from above, and they filed that before this episode. Jack even has a different personality in this episode (radio times revealed it) closer to that of Parting Of the ways, not the darker character of TorchwoodNIKKKIN 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There cannot be direct continuity: Doctor Who is also for children, Torchwood strictly for adults. Jack's Torchwood darkness would be inappropriate in DW, as would any direct link to the Torchwood hub (which would only encourage children to watch Torchwood). I think we won't hear much (if anything)in Doctor Who about Jack's time in Torchwood (whereas, Torchwood can happily make references from events in DW). Gwinva 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ - RTD established continuity by having Jack Harkness in both series - and references in Torchwood to what happened to Jack in DW and his search for 'the right kind of Doctor'. While they established that Jack would be the only character to cross between the shows, it seems they could have done a better job dovetailing the end of TW Series 1 with his return to DW in Utopia. 216.83.165.180 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that Torchwood and Doctor Who make little effort to maintain continuity where doing so might spoil dramatic effect. Here instead of the TARDIS materializing in an underground chamber and Jack boarding it, we get a dramatic chase across the square in broad daylight. Excellent value for money, and very Jack.

Recall that there were considerable differences between the details in Cyberwoman and those in the Doctor Who episodes Army of Ghosts and Doomsday. They take the concepts of "canon" less seriously, perhaps because of the history of the show. --Tony Sidaway 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New image

Could someone maybe grab an image from last night's trailer? Then all the hundreds of those arguing against consensus (Matthew) will be happy.--Rambutan (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

actor cites

{{editprotected}} Citations for all the actors appearing in this episode are found in DWM 383.

"A Doctor Who Special of Blue Peter will be shown on Wednesday 13th June 2007": cite for this is DWA 31

I don't understand this request. Could you please clarify? Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been lifted. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Can this be semi-protected instead of fully protected? Also, can someone italicise "Blue Peter"? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It could probably be unprotected if users agreed to stop inserting NFCC violations. Matthew 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Most users agree that it is not a violation. It's consensus. What don't you understand?--Rambutan (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I've unprotected this article. While discussion continues regarding the inclusion of an image, no image should be added or removed from the article. I'm trusting that all editors will be able to exercise some self-control and use dialog rather than starting a new edit war. I want this article to be editable by everyone, and because this is an isolated issue with the page, I feel that everyone can keep discussion regarding the image on this talk page, while still preserving the ability to edit the page and its contents freely. If the disputed image is added or removed again, the page will most likely return to full protection. Please exercise some restraint. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, there are four editors who believe that the image is fine, and two who don't. Does this mean that general consensus has been reached? Alternatively, use an image from last night's trailer; I'll put one on now (that is, I'll upload it for comment here).--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So, how about File:Utopia - how nice!.jpg?--Rambutan (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a person in no way involved in the earlier dispute, I think the image would be fine. Being from last night's trailer, it has to be from "Utopia". Willow177 17:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. There ought to be at least one other person in agreement, I suppose. Anyone?--Rambutan (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to request that the image not be added, at least not without agreement among four or more editors. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is certainly from next weeks episodes, but it still has nothing to provide commentary on (see WP:NFCC - Significance). Really, I don't understand this desire to upload an image first -- it's only an image, yes? Matthew 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor weighing in for the first time on this: I do think the image of the character known (from at least two sources) to be in the episode, with a good, informative caption, certainly meets Fair Use and other requirements, as surely as any other image illustrating an already-aired episode. Still, if the unaired-and-therefore-suspect component of the argument is a major hurdle, that becomes moot in another six days. Having to wait those six days seems silly but survivable - and once the episode airs, we'll have material for an even better caption. I do think, though, that an image can be genuinely informative and illustrative (and thus allowable) before the air date, as long as the right conditions are met: 1) we know it's from the episode and 2) it clearly provides context and isn't merely decorative. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So, in agreement are: myself (1), Karen/Mavarin (2) and Willow177 (3). One more person is needed.--Rambutan (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about numbers. Consensus is about reasoning. Your reasoning is flawed - the use of the image in this article does not meet WP:NFCC, plain and simple. 81.104.175.145 10:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this must be rather complicated for you. Read the following bullet points, and perhaps you’ll understand:

• The NFCC doesn’t constitute a bright-line rule.
• Therefore, there can be disagreements about whether or not things meet it.
• An administrator has ruled, on this page, that if four users agree that it meets the guidelines, and fewer than four disagree, then it can be assumed to be acceptable.
• Three users - so far - agree that it meets the NFCC. Two disagree (you don't count, you're anonymous).
• Therefore, one more user will complete the required consensus.

Can you follow that?--Rambutan (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because you clearly don't understand what consensus is.

• The NFCC are a relatively strict definition - either something meets it, or it doesn't. There's no middle ground, just like a woman can't be "a little bit pregnant".
• There is no such ruling on this page. What was said is that the agreement of four editors is a necessary condition. Nobody said it would be a sufficient condition.
• One more user does not "complete the required consensus". Consensus is never about numbers. 81.104.175.145 10:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Four editors agree that the image is fair use. Sure, there's room for disagreement, but that's why we discuss it. Only two established editors think it isn't allowed, so we go with the flow. Please don't remove the image again; discuss it here, bearing in mind how nasty edit wars are, and the 3RR.--Rambutan (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Four editors agree. So what? What's your point here? The image doesn't meet the WP:NFCC. It fails criterion 4, since the episode has not yet aired. It fails criterion 8, because it does not significantly contribute to the article (mentioning that Derek Jacobi is in the article will replace it, unless you consider the cup important). The image itself fails criterion 10, because the FUR provided was invalid. Hence, while it may be fair use in a legal sense, we can't use it in this article because it fails three of the criteria. Four editors clearly does not make a "consensus", but even then, consensus does not trump policy. Anyway, it's only an "edit war" as long as you insist on replacing it into the article. 81.104.175.145 10:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We've all been discussing whether or not it meets the criteria, the score is 4-2 at the moment. If it so obviously and objectively breaches the criteria, how come four users think it doesn't, and only two think it does? The consensus isn't to override policy, it's to decide whether policy is being overridden.--Rambutan (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "consensus isn't about numbers" are you having difficulty with? 81.104.175.145 11:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an image from the last trailer woulod be fine in the article for the reasons above. -- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 10:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll insert the image now.--Rambutan (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the picture - mainly because the quality is poor for its resolution. I also think that an image of the "Humans are coming!" guy or the chase would give way to a slightly more informative caption (I have screenshots of both, but I can't upload it as I'm at a public terminal), but I have no problems with it as of yet. Will ^(talk) 10:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Will, I uploaded it before I noticed your comment. I agree about the resolution, but I don't really have the time and energy to improve it! It'll do for a placeholder, at any rate. I'd be happy for your "Humans are coming" image, anyway: I just couldn't pause my video at a decent non-blurry point!--Rambutan (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I've requested semi-protection; Will, thanks for reverting: I'm close to 3RR!--Rambutan (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[update] Request denied, I've tried further explanation. What will happen, I don't know.--Rambutan (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your request was abusive. Semi-protection is not for gaining the upper hand in an edit war. 81.104.175.145 11:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not abusive, "abusive" means rude comments about you. I didn't use it for that, I used it to support consensus. Anyway, it's over now, so drop it.--Rambutan (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an abusive request. You specifically requested semi-protection, in the knowledge that it would stop me from editing and not you. That's an abuse of process. 81.104.175.145 11:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Because an IP was not following consensus. If I wasn't consensus and Khaosworks kept reverting, I think Khaosworks would be quite right to protect the page. Will ^(talk) 11:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be the case if there were actually a consensus. There is no consensus here. Anyone who thinks their is is deluded. 81.104.175.145 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks - how about discussing the article now & your differences, rather than focussing on RPP reports? - Alison ☺ 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What's to discuss? The image fails three WP:NFCC beyond any doubt. 81.104.175.145 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: in fact, unless 81.104.175.145 has anything else to contribute to the discussion (rather than griping about reasonable measures being taken against him), then the case can be considered closed!--Rambutan (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They were not reasonable. WP:PROT: Semi-protection should not be used ... in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. 81.104.175.145 11:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not remotely interested. If you've got a problem, report it here. Leave us alone!--Rambutan (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that this has now been reported to WP:AN/FURG by the anon editor, so folks can weigh in over there if they like - Alison ☺ 11:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us, but I give up, I'm going to go and eat some lunch.--Rambutan (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

Some git's removed the image, and deleted it. Any suggestions?--Rambutan (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, git? Anyway, your kind attention – [1]. Please try and understand that consensus does not trump official policy. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Suggest (again) that you get back to article editing and try to remain civil, esp. with Nick there - Alison ☺ 12:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever deleted the image. Matthew 12:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained, the consensus was, that policy was not broken. The consensus was not to break policy. We decided that the image was fine with NFCC. Thus, you're acting in a unilateral way.--Rambutan (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You just don't understand policy. Matthew 12:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Start explaining then. As I said, NFCC is not a bright-line rule. Thus, there is oppurtunity for debate. The conclusion of the debate was that that image fell on the "OK" side of the non-bright-line.--Rambutan (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And your reporting of the editor who removed it to AIV as a "troll" was helpful how? The image was not fair use, is not fair use, and will not be fair use. It therefore is not necessary to the article, and its removal was correct. Neil ╦ 12:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• (ec)That's nothing to do with it.
• He was griping about the request for protection, and leaving drivelly messages on my talkpage, and removing stuff from his. That's vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism for more info).--Rambutan (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The NFCC is policy, simple as. Two or three users agreeing with you and you declaring consensus doesn't actually equal consensus. Matthew 12:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a debatable guideline, and we debated it. Explain where we went wrong.--Rambutan (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well since you think it's a guideline when it clearly says POLICY at the top, I'd suggest that as a starting point? --Fredrick day 12:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, policy, guideline, whatever. It doesn't change the point: it's open to interpretation, and we interpreted it as fine.--Rambutan (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Not to mention requesting semi-prot on WP:RPP to block out an anon editor in a content dispute. - Alison ☺ 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He was reverting against consensus. Why don't you all go back to editing [unquote].--Rambutan (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he was reverting in line with policy. Policy outweighs consensus on an individual article talk page; if you want a Wikipedia policy to be changed, you need to establish consensus on the policy talk page, not here. Waggers 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) We had to decide whether or not the image was acceptable, as the policy was too vague. We decided that it was. We did this with reference to the policy. The policy is not totally objective, it could be debated. If it is to be taken as a bright-line rule, then write it into the policy. Otherwise, it needs discussion because it's shamefully inadequate.--Rambutan (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Page prot. was not appropriate to this, as I pointed out on WP:RFPP. You wouldn't let it drop there, so I ended up getting involved with the dispute (which, I'm sure, you now regret). Right now, another admin has stepped in, viewed the issue in detail and deleted the image and link in question. I think it's time to move on now ... - Alison ☺ 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Alison, I will not move on while I'm still being criticised. When will you understand that?--Rambutan (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy is not "too vague", it is crystal clear and as per the provisions of the law. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) If it's crystal clear, then how come four or five users didn't understand it?--Rambutan (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How would I know? The law is clear in many respects, yet many a layman do not have a clear understanding of it. Wikipedia's policies are not esoteric either. The deletion has been endorsed by administrators, who are, generally speaking, the most experienced of users on the encyclopedia. Trust us. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Did the image have a fair use rationale? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it did not. That itself constitutes speedy deletion for bad licensing. The content had not been previously published elsewhere. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This image should explain the situation to those who don't understand it.--Rambutan (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice image indeed, but I have deleted it under WP:POINT. Please do not do it again. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For reference, it suggested "This is how common law systems work". Thing is, Wikipedia is not a common law system. 81.104.175.145 13:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... look, I'm as big a fan of nuking non-free content as the next person, but this image can clearly pass #4 and #8 with minimal fuss. Any image from the trailer has been published (we'd just be using a very small excerpt from the video), and the case of illustration seems to me significant - given that very little is known about an episode before it airs, an image goes a long way to illustrating the tone of an episode. Similarly, casting news like Derek Jacobi's appearance is well-illustrated by a picture of his character. The only thing that may well not have been good was the image tag, but that could readily be fixed by a re-upload with a proper tag. Phil Sandifer 14:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy actually refers to permanent publication, which can be verified and sourced; and so does the law. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy defines publication very poorly, then - by any reasonable standard a television presentation is verifiable and sourceable - we use them as sources routinely elsewhere, as they are readily obtainable in their original broadcast form. This is a particularly nitpicky objection, I feel. Phil Sandifer 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, purely illustrative uses such as "Derek Jacobi is in the episode, so here's a picture of Derek Jacobi" are prohibited by the policy. Admittedly, I may not RC. 81.104.175.145 14:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. The picture only illustrated the character, and nothing else. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the picture illustrated the event of a well-regarded actor appearing in Doctor Who, and further gave a sense of what that appearance consisted of. I'll grant that there is room for debate here, but it's certainly not as clear-cut as you're making it seem. Phil Sandifer 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The image was of Derek Jacobi in a generic costume. It could have been any period drama, and thus did not sufficiently identify the performance. 81.104.175.145 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. By that standard most any picture of an actor in a role that does not have a highly distinct costume would be unusable to illustrate that character. Put another way, it would be demonstrably inferior to have a picture of Derek Jacobi in a similar piece of period garb from another performance entirely. Phil Sandifer 18:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if Sir Nick says its being deleted, let it be. I, for one, dont want it getting protected again. We'll just have to wait till saturday to get an image for the article. Willow177 14:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've readded in an image - the original one. The original one does pass WP:NFCC, to 81's concerns:

• In a published work: yes, the Series 3 extra trailer.
• Significant: yes - Jacobi is an esteemed actor, and he has worked for Doctor Who in the past. The latter is mentioned in the article.
• Rationale: yes. And it was rude of 81 to tell Marnette that it didn't.

I hope there aren't any concerns. Will ^(talk) 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but it still fails the NFCC. "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot.", the image provides no commentary on the episode, or the character. The image is simply decorative to show the character -- you need to discuss the character. Matthew 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Very true. User:Sceptre also needs to bear in mind that every single use of non-free content must be justified. A rationale that might have been valid in one article is not necessarily valid in others. 81.104.175.145 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We may not discuss Jacobi's character, but we do discuss Jacobi himself in the article. Will ^(talk) 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't in and of itself justify including an image of him. 81.104.175.145 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly doesn't it justify it, then? Will ^(talk) 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want an image of the actor then find a free one. Matthew 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the article, an image of him in character would be more significant and helpful to the reader than a free image. Will ^(talk) 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "helpful" doesn't go towards NFCC#8. You haven't gone any way towards demonstrating why the image is a "significant contribution" to the article - right now, it seems to be just a decorative addition. 81.104.175.145 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to even bother continuing this argument. It's wasting too much time. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As was your ignoring the discussion here and reposting a near identical image. Neil ╦ 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me straightforward that a free image of Jacobi not from this episode is an inferior illustration to one from this episode. Again, I'm not trying to say the matter is clear-cut. Far from it, this is a complex issue. What bothers me is the dogmatism of "the image is unacceptable" and the citing of NFCC as though it could be applied robotically. Phil Sandifer 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, does this mean that all images on all Doctor Who articles should be removed?--Rambutan (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From how I am forced to interpret the comments above, yes. Phil Sandifer 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it just means that images must comply with the NFCC (e.g. have something to provide commentary on). The aired episodes have this, the unaired episodes do not. This is simply the desire to prematurely insert an image peaking its head -- really, there's no immense rush. A point to also consider for images of unaired episodes is last weeks image, the caption was totally incorrect -- and that was down to editors speculating (nudge)... Matthew 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not seem at all useful to me. For instance, the image on last week's episode illustrates little beyond what Sally Sparrow and a Weeping Angel look like. That does not seem to me materially different from illustrating what Derek Jacobi's character will be looking like. Phil Sandifer 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I have seen images of dead people being deleted on the basis that there is a free replacement picture , even though people provided fair use rationales ,so various editors do seem to be taking a dogmatic approach over what constitutes free content .Garda40 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

guys can we try to get along, i hate edit wars they tear users apart, now stop removing and deleting the images--Lerdthenerd 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated episode description

The following summary appeared on the official BBC Youtube channel for a day or so on their Utopia trailer. It has since been edited but several people/websites have noted the original version:

The TARDIS propels itself to the end of the Universe where they encounter the Futurekind, a wild race that hunts humans for food. After a narrow escape the Doctor, Martha and Captain Jack find themselves in Silo 16 where Professor Yana is building a rocket for the remaining humans to escape to a distant Utopia.

There are some who say the name "Yana" is very significant for reasons I won't immediately point out as it is perhaps spoilerific. TaraLivesOn 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to cite either BBC or Outpost Gallifrey for that, though. Will ^(talk) 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: You need to cite a verifiable source. Matthew 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Of which the only two verfiable sources are BBC press releases and Outpost Gallifrey, so I pretty much was right. Will ^(talk) 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is OG reliable?--Rambutan (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OG is pretty much reliable, yes. I can't think of a time when they've been wrong. We could lump in A Brief History of Time (Travel), but that's more production than news. Will ^(talk) 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...-Rambutan (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

SHould we put in that it is set in the year 100trillion where time lords havent been before from the trailers?86.136.3.193 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way "Silo 16" is now confirmed as it can be clearly seen in one of the publicity photos for this episode. --TaraLivesOn 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref links

I was going through and citing this article, but I appear to have removed the reference table. Also, I am tempted to remove the section about the TARDIS refueling, as it seems like speculation. Feedback please Willow177 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The cause of the lost refs was a missing " on the Jonathan Ross <ref name="RossClip>. Fixed. 81.104.175.145 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Graeme Harper quote

I cannot find the source of this again so I won't put it in the article but it seems very familiar from the director of Utopia (SPOILER WARNING)

"filmed a regeneration, but it's not the Doctors. It's something you really wont expect"

--TaraLivesOn 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get it from if you can't find the source?--Rambutan (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah nevermind me, sorry. It took quite a bit of searching but apparently it was a third hand report from someone saying their friend was told that, LOL. The third person was someone respectable but they didn't quote their source so I thought it was like a magazine. Apparently not. My apologies. --TaraLivesOn 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the rumour that Derek Jacobi's The Proffessor was the Master in disguise, and he regenerates into John Simm's Mr Saxon. Digifiend 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Acording to the times, Mr Saxon will be appearing in this episode. I found it here : http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q257/wardenoftheveil/Utopia1.jpg

The Radio Times website however fails to mention John Simms as appearing in the episode, so it can't be definate http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=92&programmeId=61796644&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details_fullpage.jsp User:Chris 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, the appearance of Simm may just be in the trailer. Will ^(talk) 08:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

They didnt announce that the daleks eg. Nicholas Briggs was going to be in doomsday last year. they cant use the cast list to give away the endings. Willow177 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

but we really don't know yet, not until they tell us officially or we see the episode. As far as we know the surprise could be that Jack is a timelord (I doubt it, especially as Barrowman is in the finale, but we don't know). It won't be clear until it has aired NIKKKIN 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

John Barrowman quotes - Radio Times, or What's On TV?

Apparently the "name in credits" quote is from What's On TV not the Radio Times. Its' not in copy of RT, and I had a flick through WoTV in a newsagents and the quote was there so I jotted down the page number and article title... but It seems the "joy to play" and "sad leader" quotes aren't from RT either and I only gave WoTV a cursory glance... are these from there too? --GracieLizzie 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As no-one's been able to properly source this (and as it doesn't really add much concrete information to the article), we might as well remove those quotes. Mark H Wilkinson 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey ascribes this quote to the Radio Times: "It's not the Captain Jack from Torchwood. He's not angsty, he's not moody; he's determined, but in a different way. Captain Jack from Doctor Who is a little more light-hearted, because he’s back where he wants to be. Although he loves the Torchwood team, one of his main objectives over the past couple of years has been to find the Doctor, to figure out why Jack is the way he is. Now he's there, he can let the Doctor take the responsibility for everything and he can sit in the background a bit.", so some of the removed stuff was right. Don't know if you want it, though. Gwinva 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sense is the same, yes, though worded differently. To me it appears more relevant to the characterisation section at Jack Harkness, but people editing that may well be waiting for the episodes to be broadcast. Mark H Wilkinson 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally Doctor Who & three-parters

Can people please note that a line from a children's television presenter may not mean that the production office views Utopia as the first of a three-parter? Last I checked, DWM still has eps 12 & 13 as a two part story. That episode 11 leads into this two-parter is neither here nor there unless RTD or someone official says something to that effect. Mark H Wilkinson 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree entirely, and suggest that this page, the episode listings and Master (Doctor Who) are changed back to the original one-parter plus two-parter structure, as consistently indicated in Doctor Who Magazine and I'm sure, intended by Davies. Utopia has a different director, style, setting and cast (apart from 3 regulars and a guest) from the two-parter. Unless you want to list Keeper of Traken and Logopolis as a single eight-episode serial for almost-identical reasons. --87.112.26.139 11:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I think it would be nice if we could keep the plot to the main things: The Master, Captain Jack, Utopia and the regeneration, and so on. Some of our plot summaries are nothing more than "he did this then she did that and then..." which is painful to read and not very encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll get onto it later tonight. Will ^(talk) 19:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. "Keep it brief" is the key. :) --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! I haven't the episode on hand, so feel free to fix any errors. Will ^(talk) 23:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Master quotes

Buried in the haze of noises that Yana hears as he remembers who he is, there seem to be some classic Master quotes. I definitely heard "You will give your power to me," from The Daemons. Anyone able to pick out any more? - Chris McFeely 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I do remember seeing in the CC a line of dialog credited to "Second Master" but I can't remember what the line is. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is not a specific line from any of Ainley's performances. You hear his evil laugh. The creators of this episode must have taken it from a specific moment during his years as the Master but I have not read which episode they took it from. If anyone has read it the it could be added as a sourced edit on the main page. MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

spelling+grammar

Matt, you can't just revert. It's there to support WP:MOS, and to stop some of the crap edits that have been pouring in.--Rambutan (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't insert shit within articles, yes I can just revert -- those templates go on talk pages. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Don't assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website." Matthew 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do try to be civil, Matthew. Phil Sandifer 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, after an episode, I spend about 45 minutes "policing": I've not yet made a single genuine edit to the page for Utopia, SoD, LotTL or the Master, because I've been too busy with my poopa-scoop. If we warn people to use correct spelling and grammar, then that could potentially reduce the number of reverts by 10%.--Rambutan (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers for "The Sound of Drums" and "Last of the Time Lords"

Can we please remove the reference to Martha realizing that the Master's new body is Mister Saxon? Viewers who skip the "Next Episode" trailers to avoid spoilers may not have realized the Saxon/Master connection yet, and it would be terribly unfair to spoil such a surprise in a future episode. Further, the reference to the return of the Master at the very beginning of the article should be eliminated for the time being; someone who clicks on this page who hasn't seen the episode yet may not realize that the Master returns (particularly viewers in North America), and it would be unfair to put such an important spoiler at the very beginning. If they read the detailed synopsis, then, sure, it's on them, but it's not like people don't accidentally click links. -- User:DarthSci 23:59 16 JUNE 2007 UTC

Wikipedia is not censored. Will ^(talk) 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Setting things up so in an article about an episode that only just aired in its home country, and has not yet aired internationally, so as to avoid spoiling readers who may have accidentally clicked on the episode link or who have avoided spoilers of subsequent episodes hardly constitutes censorship.

2) But spoiler warnings may be used on occasion. The relevant section reads as follows: "Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editors proposing them have compelling arguments for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work." Revealing that the Master is in "Utopia" in the lead paragraph does not improve the quality of the article (the same information can be revealed in the lead paragraph in a nonspoilerific way, such as through a link), and it does ruin the surprise for anyone who's not yet seen the episode and is only glancing through the lead paragraph. Similarly, there are plenty of viewers who may have seen "Utopia" but have no conception of the Saxon/Master link because they avoided the trailer (which was, after all, put at the very end of the credits). So it's even more inappropriate to spoil episodes that haven't even aired yet. -- DarthSci

Guidelines are subordinate to policy. Not to mention that other shows air way before the UK and are still spoiled. Will ^(talk) 01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead must contain the following facts, which are the most signficant about this episode:

• it is a return for the companion Captain Jack Harkness
• it is a return for The Master
• The Master regenerates

This follows from the Lead section guideline and our duty as an encyclopedia to Neutral point of view. We don't omit details just because some people don't want to know them. This isn't a fan wiki and it isn't a blog. It's an encyclopedia.

In deference to the fact that this episode has only aired, presently, on BBC, I suggest that we follow the practice recommended in the spoiler guideline and put a {{spoiler}} tag at the very top of the page. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

An acceptable compromise. -- DarthSci 01:26 17 JUNE 2007 UTC

There's no need for the spoiler tag, as far as I can see. Information about an episode found in an encyclopedia article about that episode can hardly be called "unexpected". — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master/Saxon connection is a bit different, as the information wasn't actually revealed in this episode. We should keep the summary here to what this episode reveals. It's revealed in the next episode that Martha identified the voice as Mr. Saxon's, so we should put that note in that episode, not this one (and the "Next time..." segments count as part of that episode). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that we're not having the spoiler tag ([2], [3]).--Rambutan (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer: "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE". Simple as, Wikipedia is an encylopaedia -- not a fan site. I strongly suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS as well, you seem to lack understanding of what it is. Matthew 09:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple as, if you read WP:SPOILER, it says that spoiler-warnings are permissible when the editors can prove that it would spoil enjoyment if they weren't there. We've done that, so it's allowed.--Rambutan (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't done that, feel free to, though. Matthew 10:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been done above, but I'll do it again since you evidently can't reach the PgUp key.

• It doesn't affect the article adversely: anyone seeing it will say, "Oh, that's OK, I've watched it".
• If someone knew that the Master was there, it would not affect their enjoyment that much. BUT, they would also find that he was the season's "big bad", and appeared in the next two episodes - neither of which have been broadcast yet.--Rambutan (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And? Wikipedia is not censored. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, you still haven't provided rationale as to why a spoiler tag is needed. Basically you're just saying: "I'm paranoid that this article will 'spoil' somebody... so lets add a placebo to the top of the article." Matthew 10:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have satisfied the two criteria laid down in WP:SPOILER. Thus, it's a rationale.--Rambutan (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER says that if a spoiler-tag is justified according to those two criteria, it's allowed. It's policy. It's justified, so it's allowed. It's allowed. What is it you find complicated? Is WP:SPOILER not policy any more?--Rambutan (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's never been policy... Matthew 10:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Master" or "The Master"

Ckatz seems to be debating whether we should link the Master or the Master. I think we should use the former, since it's his name.--Rambutan (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The credits, an authoratitive source, say "the Master", just as they say "the Doctor". On other Master-stories, eg Colony in Space, it's linked including the "the". Why's this any different?--Rambutan (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the credits have also said "Doctor Who" for the Doctor at certain points in the show's history - but we know that the character's name isn't "Doctor Who". We don't use "The Master" or "The Doctor" (capitalized, not including the beginning of sentences), and esthetically, it just looks wrong to link the lower-case "the". I think we have to decide what is the correct form - and then adjust all the articles to match, rather than just using other Master episodes as a template. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Chan, my thought is that all the Master episodes have stood like that for a long time, and nobody's complained, tho. He also identified himself as "the Master" to Chantho, so that discounts your quote. It's a grey area, but since "the Doctor" is most commonly referred to as that, I think that the phantom "the" should stay.--Rambutan (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly isn't worth an edit war. Discussion, yes, and I'll agree that it is a grey area. However, if we look at the Wikipedia articles, we rarely see the term "The Doctor" capitalized; it is written as "the Doctor". Furthermore, the main article on the character is located at Doctor (Doctor Who). While Wikipedia article naming conventions avoid using articles such as "The", exceptions are allowed when it is a part of the actual name. One would think that the article would have been located at The Doctor instead. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about it being capitalised. It shouldn't be capitalised. But, it should be linked, since that's his name, according to other WP articles, the credits, bits of the episodes, various news releases and the official synopsis for LOTTL.--Rambutan (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization is important, however - if the term isn't capitalized. it becomes debatable as to whether it is actually a part of the name. (Plus, where do the other articles categorically state that the name *is* "the Doctor", rather than just having it written that way? There seems to be a lot of grey as well, with the only definitive part being that "Doctor" is involved.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait for some of the others to voice an opinion, then.--Rambutan (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument is best resolved by reference to the programme "You might be a doctor but I am the Doctor. The definate article you might say" - Tom Baker, Robot. Seems pretty conclusive to me. The Doctor is only addressed directly as "Doctor", all third person refferences include the definate article. Ditto with the Master, with the difference that I believe that this is the first time the Doctor has addressed him as such, all previous salutations being variations on "oi you." MartinMcCann 10:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Rambutan (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MartinMcCann, thanks for the explanation - but could you please state which one you feel is correct? (Pardon my confusion, but your text could be taken as supporting either format. --Ckatz 21:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I heard Derek Jacobi say "I am...The Master!" and it's beyond dispute that he pronounced the capital T. Case proven. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's hardly "case proven". If HRH says "I am (pause for dramatic effect) the Queen" - does that mean her name is "The Queen"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding. Derek Jacobi in full flow is quite impressive! --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(Sheepish grin) Got me... and just as I was about to rephrase. (And yes, it was entertaining!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On the point that lack of capitalisation makes it "debatable as to whether it is actually a part of the name" (I think it was Ckatz's point), that's not necessarily true. Neither the Master or the Doctor are human (I know, stating the obvious, stay with me), so it might be probable that their native language isn't a human one (in this case, English), whether they actually understand it themselves or not (and they don't have to). Anyway, the point. Names from other languages don't have to be completely capitalised throughout (usually, I think, due to those parts of their names being, err, "minor" words (such as from)). A few examples: Ludwig van Beethoven, Edwin van der Sar, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Therefore, it could be argued that it isn't necessary for there to be a capital letter for it to be part of the name, in the language they speak (probably), and this is carried across to an English translation.
I hope my point's clear enough. And I just realised this is longer than I thought it was, sorry. --81.152.101.219 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Ckatz, apologies for the lack of clarity. Since the articles are written in the third person, the definate article should be used. MartinMcCann 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems slightly conclusive, then! And, Ckatz, The Queen is HM, not HRH! :-) Rambutan (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth noting?

Do people think that it's worth noting that the Master is the fourth character to appear in both the old and the new series? GusF 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Who'd be the other three? Doc, the Daleks and the Cybermen? But technically, those were different Cybermen. They just happen to share a name and have a similar look. :P Or did you have other characters in mind? --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 16:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Jane, K-9, the Doctor :) Will ^(talk) 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source for this? The reason I ask is because this is very tricky territory. Does the Nestene Consciousness count as a character? It certainly has a speaking part in Rose. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well lets be honest, its Doctor Who, you would expect to see charecters re-appearing. First, Second and Third may be worthy to note, but where are we going to stop? 5th, 6th? I'd say the fact its fourth isn't that interesting, plus its more then four anyway. --Wiggstar69 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the Doctor, Sarah Jane and K-9. I didn't think it was of great import myself. Just wanted to see what the consensus was. I'll show myself out. GusF 17:55, 17 June 2007.

I think this might be note-worthy in the main article, or perhaps here under a trivia section? Perhaps not so much in this article though. — Xy7 16:59, 17 June 2007

Even the Macra have returned:) 86.140.113.129 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to my above comment, I would say only human/humanoid characters would be note-worthy, including the Doctor, the Master, and companions. — Xy7 20:54, 17 June 2007

If we have to make the judgment call ourselves, then it's really Original Research, isn't it? Let's wait until some secondary source makes note of it, then we can follow their lead. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regeneration

I've been saying "The Master regenerates during the course of the episode, so he is played by two actors" in the lead section, and Sceptre has been removing it.

Maybe we should discuss this.

It seems pretty important to me. Time Lords seldom regenerate, and when this happens in Doctor Who there are two actors playing the part: one before and one after. I'd like to know why this keeps being removed from the lead section as "not important enough." --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Added in, in a slightly easier to read format. Will ^(talk) 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot detail

I think the 'Plot' section for this article needs rewriting - it goes through the story but not in too much detail (it leaves out what the Doctor and Jack talk about when he is in the radiation room which i think is quite important) and i do not like it when it says 'A subplot includes...' as this should just be intergrated into the article as it goes through the story. Could someone please change this? I'd do it myself but i have exams i need to revise for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-m-r-t (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 June 2007

We don't (or shouldn't) do step-by-step plots . The out-of-universe style "a subplot includes..." is recommended. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you've got exams to revise for, what are you doing being on Wikipedia? :P --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 17:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Tony's right. Wikipedia's guidelines about writing about fiction do ask that it is out-of-universe, and I've tried to do so as much as I can. Will ^(talk) 18:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anagram

I've removed the "Master No Six" thing as original research for now. It would be nice to have a reliable source. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the Digital Spy news item - I'm unsure as to its reliability, but it does prove it was indeed pointed out by at least one source pre-episode. Will ^(talk) 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Which source pointed it out? BBC would be okay. Davies would be okay. Beyond that, it would be speculation. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

- I haven't seen and confimation that "Mister Saxon" was meant as an anagram of "Master no Six", but the BBC's fact file on the episode "Utopia" points out that the John Simm incarnation of the Master is the sixth incarnation that the Doctor has faced. Peter Pratt and Geoffrey Beevers played the same incarnation and the Gordon Tipple incarnation didn't face the Doctor onscreen. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Edited by Gallifreyan Summoner 22:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It'll do. I'll rewrite a bit. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the fact file specifically refers to Simm as 'Master No Six' (spelt exactly like that). I think GS has Eric Roberts confused with the guy who played the Master during the TV movie's opening.

Did somebody mention Eric Roberts? :P Gallifreyan Summoner 22:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The BBC website uses the formulation "Master No. Six". Not only is this an anagram of "Mister Saxon", it is an unusual formulation too. Given the Tremas>Master thing in the past, it cannot be a coincidence. It is not original research, just a straightforward, uncontroversial deduction.

The bit about the tv pundit is fine. Saying more would be unsourced speculation. There's a difference between reporting that somebody speculated on the anagram and saying that the anagram was intentional. It probably was, but we have no source saying that it was and we shouldn't imply that we do. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that after the next episode, the BBC website will be explicit about this. Although I see no need to wait a few days to re-add the info, I suppose it is only a matter of a few days before your objection will be removed, The Tribe of Gum 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added an RTD quote from Radio Times that addresses this. Chris 42 20:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Should an encyclopedia be asking questions to the reader?

The synopsis section is full of flowery, non-encyclopedic language. Most notably, the decidedly non-neutral closing sentence: "But will the vicious Futurekind thwart his plans?" Is this an encyclopedia article or an advertisement for the show? I was just going to change it, but a comment within the article pointed me to the talk page -- but I can't find any relevant discussion. Let's get this cleaned up. -- MisterHand 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that, with the aim of having a suitably "dramatic" synopsis without copyvioing the official one, which is usually reverted two between 14 and 17 times by anonymous users. I don't see anything wrong with it, but won't fight if it's changed. However, I can't really see what could replace it?--Rambutan (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does the synopsis have to be "dramatic"? It's well-written, but it reads like the blurb off the back off of a paperback novel. Hence the "advert" tag I put on there earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterHand (talk • contribs)

By all means suggest an alternative. I only made it dramatic because if it was dry, some prat would replace it with the official synopsis, which would be a copyvio.--Rambutan (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a crack at it. Not as well written, but hopefully a bit more encyclopedic? -- MisterHand 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Rambutan (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, i have an opinion, i think you should get over yourself.
So other people are making edits, big deal, just because we're ip's doesn't make us wrong, and yet you revert every edit that you don't like. just because you're a member, doesn't make you better than ip's--81.76.90.123 12:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you're an IP doesn't make you wrong, but most IP edits within the first two hours of the episode's broadcast are wrong.--Rambutan (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not very precise "most IP edits ..." and it is original research. >:) --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First non-doctor regeneration

Is it worth mentioning that this is the first regeneration of a character - other than the Doctor - to be shown on screen? I know that Romana regenerated in Destiny of the Daleks, but the actual regeneration was not shown on screen - you just saw her coming in with different bodies. StuartDD 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, mainly because it isn't the first regeneration seen on screen. Mark H Wilkinson 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Other instances include the Doctors mentor, Cho-Je, in Planet of the Spiders, but again off screen. We do see on screen a regeneration in Underworld, where a member of the Minyon crew regenerates using a machine based on timelord technology. 71.145.162.13 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll find the K'anpo Cho-Je regeneration takes place on screen. Mark H Wilkinson 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Master regenerations, I can't remember whether any were shown on screen. The one in the TV movie wasn't a regeneration, it was the masters spirit possessing a human body. So if it is the case, it might be worth mentioning that the master has not been seen regenerating before.--MrClaxson 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master regenerated on-screen in The Keeper of Traken. ShaleZero 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a regeneration. It was him taking over someone's body. DonQuixote 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that a)the Ainley Master looks nothing like Tremas and b)that merging looked suspiciously like the Watcher merging with the Doctor in Logopolis, I'd call that a regeneration, albeit an unconventional one. MartinMcCann 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Er...no. a) He looked like a younger Tremas. b) Non sequitur. Just because the visuals looked similar doesn't mean that they're the same things. I mean, Meglos controlling the Earthman's body had similar visuals as the Master's "regeneration". It doesn't necessarily make either one a regeneration. DonQuixote 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

MartinMcCann, the Ainley Master is supposed to look sufficiently like Tremas to fool Nyssa into thinking he's still her father (cf. Logopolis). Whatever you wish to call it, it's certainly not meant to be Time Lord regeneration. Mark H Wilkinson 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As a slight seqway; would it be worth mentioning that in making the show, Graeme Harper would be the first Director to have done two regenrations from two different stories? He directed "Caves of Androzani". 71.145.162.13 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, unless some reliable and verifiable secondary source says it (such as it being pointed out in a Doctor Who Confidential), then no, we shouldn't put it in. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How many zeros in a trillion?

From what I understand, there should be three more zeros if we're talking about a British trillion here, which I think we have to assume. Gives us all a bit more hope for the future of the universe, too - I'd like to think it lasts a bit longer!Famico666 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Russell is using short scale - i.e. 1 trillion is 10¹². Will ^(talk) 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to not use the number at all though, and just use the written 100 trillion - or even one hundred trillion - as the years are in New Earth and Gridlock. Putting both number and words, whether or not it can be shown Russell T. Davies uses short scale (not everyone would know that...), might cause unnecessary confusion. I'd personally say the same goes for The Sound of Drums. --86.130.28.121 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

How do you know it's short scale? 138.243.129.136 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whogasm

Love and bless them, are the YouTube Whogasm girls worth mentioning in this article? Mark H Wilkinson 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The following section continually keeps getting taken down, despite being significant enough to become a national news story about Utopia, where it's confirmed as an internet hit. What's everyone's thoughts on this? I think it's significant enough to be mentioned.

The Metro newspaper reported that a pair of female Doctor Who fans from Ireland had "become internet stars after a clip of them enjoying an episode of the sci-fi series just a little too much was shown on the web". The clip, titled Whogasm was uploaded on June 17, 2007 and shows them watching Utopia, when, as The Metro describes, "Suddenly, they start to scream and swear as the action unfolds in front of them in what can only be described as a 'Whogasm'." bingo99 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Metro is a category unto itself when you're saying "national, regional, local" - it's "sold" around Britain, but only on specific transport routes (West Yorkshire, Manchester, London, and I think maybe Birmingham). Will ^(talk) 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Its still has a readership in the millions in the UK. It's the fourth most read daily paper.

• http://www.brandrepublic.com/login/News/662975/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(Associated_Metro_Limited)
• http://advertising.metro.co.uk/brand/brand.htm

bingo99 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Whogasm clip also has a story about it on The Stage website

• http://www.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/06/and_you_thought_we_were_excessive.php

And also gets a mention by a journalist on The Guardian website

• http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2007/06/tv_drama_round_up.html

bingo99 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It does pass the standards of WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Best as a sub-section of this article than a stand-alone, IMHO. -- MisterHand 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Whogasm section was ridiculously large and detailed, so I've trimmed it back and given the section a more encyclopedic name. --Tony Sidaway 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability, the relevant article informs me, is not a temporary commodity. We do not serve the community by including flash in the pan stories. Mark H Wilkinson 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Having read the Whogasm part distilled into it's essence, all I can say is "so what?" it's not relevant to the episode or story itself, it is trivia. Which doesn't in my view mean it shouldn't be included, but if it is then where do you draw the line? Jasonfward 13:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the article. If not enough people agree, we wait a couple of weeks and then we'll find that opinions have changed in the direction of removal. See the recentism essay. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... didn't realize the discussion was ongoing when I removed the section as per Digby. Kudos to Tony for condensing the material, but I don't think it needs to be in either. Does that seem to be consensus so far, and should we proceed on that basis (i.e. keep it out unless a majority speaks up to put it in?) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ainley dialogue

Is this sourced and/or true?--Rambutan (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the line I recall hearing, and it sounded like Delgado, but I don't know that we have anything stronger than the fact file reference[4] (which mentions "the words and laughter of earlier incarnations of The Master" but doesn't specify) to attest that it is taken from the Daemons. Same goes for Ainley's laughter. Mark H Wilkinson 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have reverted it, but I'd have been blocked because someone would decide I'd broken 3RR. Would you mind?--Rambutan (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to reflect what we can properly source at the moment. With any luck, the box set release will contain relevant data. Mark H Wilkinson 16:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think (but I'm not sure) they say it's Ainley's chuckle on the commentary. Will ^(talk) 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, if no one gives it a listen tonight, I'll do so tomorrow morning (can't do it tonight; my connection's too slow around this point). Mark H Wilkinson 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You hear Anthony Ainley laughing, and you hear... there, that's Roger Delgado, who's speaking in I think The Dæmons!

— Phil Collinson, 36:55 to 37:01, "Utopia" commentary

The quotes, "Destroy him!", and "Then you will give your power to me!", are indeed from The Dæmons, episode five, when the Master is ordering Azal to kill the Doctor. Will ^(talk) 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I've reinserted material. Mark H Wilkinson 07:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Master's Regeneration

It isn't mentioned in the article (and perhaps it shouldn't be since it smacks of OR) but the Master was supposed to have reached the end of his regeneration cycle before the events of The Deadly Assassin, thus the need for him to take over of Tremas' body after failing to gain the Doctor's in The Keeper of Traken. The end of this marvelous (sorry POV I know) episode quite clearly shows him regenerating. Now I don't have access to much of the info that is currently available to you UK wikipedians and it is two months until we will get to hear the commentaries on the DVD. So I have to assume that (like the Doctor's regen from the eighth to the ninth) an untelevised (and unwritten?) tale in which the Master regained a new regen cycle (like the one that was referred to in The Five Doctors) must have occured. Has there been any comment on the net or in Doctor Who Monthly? Any info you can add will be appreciated and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that, since I haven't seen the next two episodes of this continuing story, that this might be explained in one of them so please don't feel the need to post a spoiler here. If, after the next two weeks, it is still left unclear I may come back and ask you again. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has become an open forum for spoilers since the abandonment of spoiler tags, it probably does no harm to mention in this thread that an answer does sort of appear in The Sound of Drums, though it's more an implication than anything else. 68.146.41.232 02:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese keyboard

I noticed that a computer keyboard used had hiragana on them, as well as english letters, just thought this might be worth noting as I don't remember any references to any real languages set this far in the future (50trillion years wasnt it?) before (but I may be wrong).--211.28.212.240 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric Roberts reference

I read a review that claimed Eric Roberts' voice (from his portrayal of the Master in the 1996 film) can also be heard during the same sequence where we hear Ainley and Delgado. Can anyone confirm this? It's certainly worth noting, not the least of which because it would be the second concrete bit of evidence (after the on-screen appearance of the Eighth Doctor's image in Human Nature) that the TVM is indeed being treated as canon by the revived series, a topic still of much debate. PS. I just found an uncited reference to this very thing in the Wikipedia article on the Eighth Doctor. If a source is available for this information, it should be added to that article, too. 68.146.41.232 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I've quick-failed this because it's in no way complete - it misses out a lot of production and reception. Some tips before renominating:

1. Listen to the commentary.
2. Wait for Shannon to do his production account (a couple of weeks).
3. Use Google News to find reviews.

Thanks, Will ^(talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Goofs

When Martha rushes to inform the Doctor about Yana's fob watch, she starts with, "Think what the Face of Boe said..." Jack (aka Face of Boe) looks at Martha. She continues, "...his dying words..." Jack looks at the Doctor, then stares at the floor. She never completes because the rocket starts to take off shortly thereafter.

Apparently, Jack was paying attention to what Martha was trying to say, which is why his question to the Doctor, "Will I ever be able to die?" seems out of place in Season 3's last episode, 'Last Of The Time Lords'.

Doctor051 (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Three-parter revisited

I think that Tim was right to remove the bald assertion that this is a three-part story. There is conflicting evidence from reliable sources; on the one hand, you've got Totally Doctor Who and the DWM poll saying it is a three-parter, on the other hand you've got the writer and executive producer saying that it's not. I think that Tim's wording was appropriately neutral for the introduction. It would even be worthwhile for the article to go into the matter in a bit more depth later on — I'll take a look at Davies' DWM column and see what I can put together. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, Davies did say it was simply his opinion and he does seem to flipflop on it, or has a soft opinion of it (saying in the same column that he was okay with it being advertised as #200). Sceptre ^(talk)

True — that's why I put the "determination is arbitrary" bit in and the quotation in the footnote. I just think there's room for a bit of nuance on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"The truth behind the existence of 'Utopia' and the fate of the humans seen in this episode is revealed in "Last of the Time Lords"."

Even though I've seen the episode, I can't recall what the 'truth' is. I think that some people who read this sentence may also wonder this vague allusion is, so could someone include what the truth is? 82.32.11.95 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)