Talk:The Sound of Drums

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) 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harold Saxon

Will has removed an edit by another user that named Saxon as Harold Saxon. I do not see the point of this, he was called Harold Saxon in The Lazarus Experiment the name is canon and removing it is pointless and diminishes the article. Kelpin 12:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a huge issue. He's been referred to as "Saxon", "Mr Saxon" and "Harold Saxon" in the episodes to date, but not as "Mr Harold Saxon"; while I don't doubt the last is a valid way to refer to him, it's less wieldy than simply "Mr Saxon", which is the name that's been used to title the story arc. Mark H Wilkinson 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mean, you could always just cope.--Rambutan (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blair resignation

Should note of this be made in the article, or is it verging on OR? It's a rather freaky coincidence, and not at all intended by the production staff, but it's still interesting. Will ^(talk) 03:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A Times reporter has made the connection, so that could be used as a source.--Rambutan (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But what has Tony Blair resigning got to do with anything? There won't be a general election and Brown will become the next PM...unless Brown is actually Mr Saxon in disguise! Now that would be something... Gammondog 12:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially since Blair has seemingly been dead in the Whoniverse since "Aliens of London"--OZOO (vote saxon) 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blair steps down from the same office at the same time we see Saxon becoming Prime Minister. That's why. Will ^(talk) 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but in the Whoniverse, the previous Prime Minister was Harriet Jones, not Blair. - Chris McFeely 19:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

She used to be a back bencher in his governement before "Aliens of London" she decribes herself as not being one of the babes.Me lkjhgfdsa 21:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence: it's outside the scope of the article. Mark H Wilkinson 12:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

Please stop mentioning the Whoniverse! Doctor Who is supposed to be and has been for the last 40 years, set in our reality.

There must have been a prime minister between Harriet Jones and Mr Saxon. Mr Saxon arrived around when Jones lost power - and Saxon was a minister in the later government, The Tribe of Gum 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think his acts as Defence Minister are in the fake history he has given himself, but I might be wrong. 138.243.129.136 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there was a Prime Minister between Jones and Saxon is outside the scope of this article, but it might be worth noting in Harriet Jones' article, or in the section of the Master's article that deals with the current storyline. For example "Harriet Jones' immediate successor is unknown, but she was eventually suceeded by the Master under the guise of Harold Saxon". I think the Master was Minister of Defence during the events of "The Runaway Bride", as he gave the Army the order to destroy the Webstar ship. Incidentally, that means the Doctor and the Master were working together during that episode. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Blair was probably killed by the Slitheen in Aliens of London. Or maybe not. Whatever the case, since then, there has been no Tony Blair in the Whoniverse. End of. Seriphyn 12:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Blair had not announced a date for his departure when this episode was recorded, but was expected to stand down some time after the local elections of early May. Doctor Who in general doesn't strive needlessly for consistency so, for instance, you have Tom MacRae in Rise of the Cybermen putting a reference to Tony Blair into Mickey's mouth, while in Aliens of London the whole apparatus of government had been wiped out, and Harriet Jones was Prime Minister at the time of the The Christmas Invasion. Making sense of all this is pointless, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Talking of which, one of my favorite episodes recently was Blink, written by Steven Moffat who also brought us The Empty Child and The Girl In The Fireplace. Is anybody else enjoying his Jekyll? --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No because Jekyll is a hilariously bad drama that only a child would enjoy. And if you believe making sense of all this is pointless then please don't 'contribute' to this page. RTD Please Go Already 10:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but on an irrelevant side-note one of my best mates watches Jekyll. That said I did see the first episode and didn't rate it much.

On the other hand, note the deliberately ironic use of Things can only get better on DW Confidential as a music cue over footage of Saxon's election victory. (Blair's theme tune in 1997). The resonances in the show with Blair's resignation may be fortuitous; but resonances with his first election are no mistake. ("Education, education, education", anyone?)

Also, is it just me, or is John Simm channelling Jon Culshaw from Dead Ringers for much of this episode? I think we should be told. Jheald 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing up this episode

OK... More exposition on the Time War and the Master than there has ever been. First black Time Lord? More U.N.I.T. More on Torchwood. And soooooooo much more. The Master was reborn as the ultimate warrior. UNIT has a SHEILD Helicarrier, designed by the Master, the Master went nuts as a child. First site of Gallifrey since...? Paradox machine... Master eating Jelly Babies. AlanD 18:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Small point though... surely that would be the effect of a few thousand years on him?AlanD 18:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol we'd have to make a minor change ot one of the torchwood articles, on personnel(The doctor finds out in this episode that jack works for torchwood.

I don't recall him being reborn as the ultimate warrior, just that the Time Lords knew he'd be the best warrior in the circumstances. --77.99.30.226 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Time Lords only resurrected me because they knew I'd be the perfect warrior for a time war..." (emphasis added). That's the word the article should use in my opinion, as we don't know any more, at least until next week. My speculation is that Russell T Davies sees it as part of his mission to try to work the relative oddities of the TV Movie into continuity with classic series canon. (Bit pointless IMHO, as it's already given us mysterious powers in the heart of the TARDIS, and a Bad Wolf dea ex machine.) But the assumption should then be that the Time War was starting in earnest around the time of the TV Movie, and the Time Lords pulled the Master out of the Eye of Harmony (which alone has the power to provide a new cycle of regenerations if it's survived according to The Deadly Assassin). Things must have been at least as desperate as they were in The Five Doctors for them to count on a renegade (in every sense) who was scheming and increasingly unhinged. OK, that's my opinion, but I hope it provides useful thoughts before editing. --Cedders^tk 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wanting to discuss the whole setting up of the whole paradox machine - as in - ??? is it my imagination of is there linking back to the movie here - opening up of the ye and stuff... AND we have another companion running off while the doctor in major trouble - where's the tardis again???Crescent 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain Scarlet

Is it me or does UNITS base reminded anyone of Cloudbase from Captain Scarlet

It does look similar. 82.12.86.64 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also very similar to the helicarrier from Marvel Comics. However, the Radio Times for this week specifically refers to it as a Captain Scarlet reference, although it's not clear whether that's just the reviewer making a connection or if it's been stated by the production team. Kelvingreen 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Marvel Comics publshed Doctor Who Magazine and thus Doctor Who comics for nearly two decades. So it is quite likely that it was also intended as a reference to the SHIELD Helicarrier from Marvel Comics -- no matter what the Radio Times claims -- especially as RTD has repeatedly made references to untelevised continuity. So I feel that my notes regarding the Helicarrier should be restored to the main article.IanThal 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the idea in requiring a direct "this is intentional" statement from the creators is so that 'common sense' isn't the only decider for what's a reference and what isn't, since people will have vastly different ideas on which connections and references are relevant. In light of that, you'd need some sort of source saying this was intentional on their part. --77.99.30.226 13:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm more than happy to have information on Cloudbase or the Helicarrier in the article if we can get confirmation that it's intentional. Otherwise there's no point, as it'll just be removed as speculation. Kelvingreen 14:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that given the long prior involvement of Marvel Comics with the non-televised Doctor Who, including cameo appearances of Lethbridge-Stewart and UNIT in the X-Men comic books, it is hard to conceive of the parallel as unintentional, especially since SHIELD is sometimes also portrayed as an international agency. Though since Marvel has not been connected with the Doctor Who franchise in over a decade,it may be impolitique for the current production team to officially acknowledge them.IanThal 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Was it mentioned as a definite reference on the Dr Who Confidential episode? That seems a likely source, but I didn't see it. Did you? Or is there a ref on the podcast commentary? Neddyseagoon - talk 12:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to conceive of this as coming from elsewhere than Captain Scarlet. But that doesn't make it a reference unless and until we get verification. The most likely explanation seems, to me, that the CGI wizards for Doctor Who produced a lovely picture of an airborne carrier. It's much easier to do that than depict a carrier amid waves with a realistic seascape, so this isn't rocket science. The Valiant does seem to resemble Cloudbase.

• Image:Doctor Who - Valiant.jpg
• Image:CS-Cloudbase 1.jpg
• http://marvel.com/universe/S.H.I.E.L.D._Helicarrier

--Tony Sidaway 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look much like either of these. And the floating/flying base trope is far from being isolated to these two examples. Mark H Wilkinson 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The SHIELD Helicarrier (first published appearance, 1965) predates the Captain Scarlet (1968) Cloudbase by three years.IanThal 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, not meaning to spoil the party or anything- but is this really going to be of massive help or importance in regards to building an encyclopaedic article..? Dan-the-man278 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

True but it was mentioned in the Fear Factor on BBC too. BTW that isn't the best nor a definative image of the S.H.E.I.L.D. Helicarrier (no offence Tony, just Marvel's choice of art, ug) it has appeared in many forms and some indeed have resembled the Valiant more... Although it also makes me think of Sky Captain... As you said though without anything beyond the Fear Factor comments we're pretty much stumped. BUT I think this may end up being relevent and Tony's sourcing of the images may prove valuable. This week's Confidential focussed on the Master it is possible they may do more on the Valiant next week and could mention their influences then. AlanD 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Wall

Should there be a mention (like in Triva or something) that the beat of the four drums is the theme tune to the show, so this is in a way breaking the fourth wall?

Sure. If you can find a source. Will ^(talk) 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only the very start of the theme tune, but it is part of it.

Yes, but we need a source. Will ^(talk) 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By that reckoning, we would need a source for every single statement made regarding the plot. Wolf of Fenric 00:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to use primary sources. That's what the plot and continuity sections feed on - and we don't need to {{cite episode}} to do it. When it gets to the line between the real world and fiction, e.g. outside references, then we need to be able to source those adequately. Will ^(talk) 00:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Freema Agyeman talks about the beat of the drums being the theme tune on the podcast that goes with this episode. I believe the podcast is the same as the DVD commentary. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the drums could be from We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Towards the beginning of chapter (called records in there - it's structured like a diary) two, there's a reference to a beat of "Tra-ta-ta-tam, Tra-ta-ta-tam" which plays as the subjects march into a new day. Later on, the book talks about hearing the constant emissions of the "music factory". It kinda fits too, both worlds being horrible dystopias and all. 82.21.111.143 13:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is an example of breaking the fourth wall, it's more like a Leitmotif, underscoring the connection between the Master and the Doctor by having the Master use part of a musical theme associated with the Doctor. This rythym is more strongly noticable in older episodes of Doctor Who than it is in the current music that is used.--RLent (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An SFX magazine special (Doctor Who Special 4) has an interview with Freema Agyeman in which she mentions that the drums are the theme tune (apparently she originally went 1. 2-3-4. But she didn't realise 1.2.3.4. in the script meant the drum beat in the theme tune). But the material probably isn't on the Internet, so I can't provide a hyperlink. It backs up the podcast though. Digifiend (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• As I understand it, saying that the beats are the theme tune is one thing, mildly interesting as it is - but saying that the use of the beats in this episode was a deliberate link to the theme tune is a different matter and requires a source to back it, specifically, up. For example, saying, "The Doctor said You work for Torchwood? is a reference to The Doctor Who Fan's Blog which also used that phrase," is different to saying, "The Doctor said You work for Torchwood?; The Doctor Who Fan's Blog also used that phrase." Only the former (if sourced, obviously) could have any place in the article as it is the only one which draws a link. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Year figure

Giving the year 100 trillion in numerical form might be best avoided, since it is open to debate which manner of trillion is being used here. The current figure on the homepage 100,000,000,000,000 is a representation of an American one hundred trillion (one hundred thousand billion). However, under British convention, it would be one hundred billion billion, each billion being a million million, giving a value of 100*10^24 years. GullibleKit 20:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Russell uses the short scale: e.g. The End of the World is "5 billion" years in the future, not "5,000 million". Will ^(talk) 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the UK now officially uses the "modern UK" naming, and many theorists predict the universe will extinguish in 10¹⁶ years onward, I think it's pretty to asume 100,000,000,000,000. --Edokter (Talk) 00:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Billion was pretty clearly 10⁹ in The End of the World, and the stars are gone in Utopia, but don't forget that the thermodynamics of the Whoniverse are not what they seem, as entropy is being exported large-scale through Charged Vacuum Emboitments. --Cedders^tk 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

other things

Is it worth mentioning the viewing of the vortex by the Doctor and the Master in their youths and the effect it had on them? Also is it worth mentioning that the Master designed the Valient? I'm assuming a lot of other bits and bobs from the episode have been placed on the Master and Doctor pages as they may be too much for an episode mention? I know it is a bit daft but this is another episode where the Doctor enoys chips... sounds daft but he is alien so it may be worth bringing up. Geez there was loads, I'm still trying to remember things, loads of back story more than usual... AlanD 00:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ninth Doctor eats chips at the close of End of the World. It's not particularly significant.IanThal 12:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact it's hard to think of anything less significant :). I notice entries for Banana and Jelly babies at List of Doctor Who items, so that could be the place for it. All depends on the dietary habits of the writers, I think. Valiant design seems relevant to the plot, though. --Cedders^tk 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian the fact he ate them then too and made a point about it was what I was getting at. For a human enjoying chips is a normal thing for an alien to twice make such a human deal about craving them and then enjoying them seems moderately worth noting. It was clearly scripted (on both occasions) to stand out. AlanD 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC) BTW no need to be so rude.

On the subject of random things that may be relevent, Martha's guess that the Master is the Doctor's brother, and the Doctor's dismissal of the idea, is a dig at a popular fan-theory. Worth mentioning? Daibhid C 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not believe I was rude, I meant only to be terse. However, I apologize if I ruffled any feathers. The Doctor dismissing a popular fan-theory is highly significant. That the Doctor and companions have chips for dinner in an abandoned factory when they are wanted fugitives seems not to be so significant, since they would unlikely want to sit down at a restaurant for a meal. He may very well enjoy chips, but given the circumstances, it would be one of the most practical things to eat.IanThal 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master-as-brother thing is very obvious, but unfortunately, unless confirmed Moffat-style on OG or similar, we can't really mention it. --77.99.30.226 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspected as much. Daibhid C 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Work for other people to do

I'm not big on editing, so here's stuff for people to add.

This used both Time Lord costumes, the original black and white jumpsuits from the Troughton era for the Young Master, as well as the elaborate ones from the later series for the adult Time Lords.

The Cloister Bell in the TARDIS is ringing constantly when they are examining the Paradox device. --70.253.202.209 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Toclafane: robots or aliens?

Until we have a confirmation on this, we need to use a neutral word, like "entities", "beings". Could someone suggest a better one?--Rambutan (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are the Last of the Time Lords? All six billion of them, The Tribe of Gum 08:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As funny and terribly depressing as that would be, thinking up a neutral name would be a better course of action. It says entites now, so this isn't a problem. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence in the episode to suggest they are robots. On the contrary they talk like children and the Master refers to them as "My children". Whilst it seems unlikely he's being literal, this would tend to suggest he sees them as infantile organics. The only remote pointer to them being robotic is the metal casing that covers them, however both the Daleks and Cybermen have this and both have an organic lifeform inside.Kelpin 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I would use a thesaurus to find a word which implies equally life and automatonishness, but I wouldn't know where to begin!--Rambutan (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On a serious point - you are only debating something that will be in the article for less than a week. So I don't think it matters too much for now, The Tribe of Gum 08:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does matter now, because the article can't just look like a pile of cr*p all week!--Rambutan (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well whether they are robotic or organic, they come from another planet so they are still aliens and so could be referred to as such. I fail to see what's wrong with referring to them as entities though. Just out of curiosity, Someguy, what would be funny and depressing?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.194 (talk • contribs)

It's a paradox. The use seemed appropriate. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• There's no source that they're from another planet.
• "Aliens" refers to living organisms in the general use of the term.--Rambutan (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of (perhaps some sort of) interest, any ideas on why the Doctor would be 'heartbroken' when he finds out what/who they are?Dan-the-man278 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Toclafane are referred to as being like the 'bogeyman. As in a story told to scare young timelords. The master said "do you remember all those fairytales about the Toclafane". Perhaps this has something todo with why the doctor would be heartbroken. And maybe the master has recreated them based on the fairytales?--82.13.188.95 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

See this page.--Rambutan (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... (embarassed grin whilst reading the "not a discussion forum" section of the page)... Dan-the-man278 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely the point is that within the story they are refered to as aliens (the whole plot revolves around Harold Saxon's announcement that he is making First Contact with an alien race)? Isn't that appropriate point and reference just now? No matter what is revealed next week at THIS point in time all the characters and the story have revealed about them is that they are an alien race. If it turns out that they are robots or the Time Lords back from the dead then that gets mentioned in next week's article ("It is revealed that the Toclafane were not an alien race as previously stated but are in fact the science experiement of a 9 year old genius from Grimsby that attracted the attention of Mr Saxon when he was on his election campaign."... or whatever).AlanD 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We should write about them in out-of-universe perspective, which means that once the identity of the Tocaflane is known we can revisit the descriptive and plot sections of this article and update it so it fits. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Without a source, they cannot be referred to as either robots or aliens in the article. This speculation isn't getting us anywhere.--Rambutan (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master refers to them as an alien race in his TV address to the UK. That is your source. Kelpin 11:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He also calls them the Toclafane, and we all know that's not their real names. Will ^(talk) 11:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that's not their real name? He also calls the device he uses a "laser screwdriver" but I didn't see him put up any shelves with it. Yet that comment has been left in the article. I don't think you can dismiss what The Master says as a lie for the purposes of this document until its proven in a future episode. Kelpin 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because he stole the name from a Gallifreyan fairy tale? Phone conversation between Master and Doctor confirms. Will ^(talk) 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Doctor doesn't believe him doesn't mean The Master is wrong. Perhaps these creatures are / were the inspiration for the timelord fairy tale. We don't know that is speculation. What I have stated is fact. (I could also have added that they are scared of the dark which also ties in with The Master's statement that they are children not robots). This is not a forum or a debating society. If next week's episode proves they are robots the entry can always be changed then. As things stand all the facts point to them being organic. Kelpin 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, since there's doubt, there MUST be a reliable source. What's so complicated?--Rambutan (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really can't see why there is any doubt on this issue. Robots are not scared of the dark, they don't talk like children and no one in the episode said they were robots. On the other hand they were referred to as aliens at least once. I think this is a complete non-issue.Kelpin 11:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I said before. For all the talk of reliable sources it seems conveinent to ignore THE MOST reliable source of all (the episode) when someone doesn't like what it said. They were not refered to as robots and they were referred to as aliens. Even if something else is established next week the FACTS for this week's write-up should stand as them being aliens (although a few brief words to say this was later disproven and a link to the next episode would make sense). We have to use the facts established in the episode... which is normally the stick at least one person who is arguing against this uses to hit others with when it is something they want.AlanD 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally it IS their real name for the purpose of this episode's write up as it is the name they are given. Mr Saxon is not The Master's real name but the episode and previous episodes refer to him by that name (rightly). We shouldn't be getting into speculation. It is the name given to them in the episode so, for this episode, it is their name. This tends to be the norm when things like this are written up. AlanD 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know robots don't speak like children and aren't scared of the dark? Maybe these are emotionally immature robots or maybe nyctophobic eunuch robots with high-pitched squeaky voice and a habit of re-iterating themselves ("run and run and run.")

Has anyone noticed the previous episode! What happened! Those humans went off to that signal "utopia"! I thaught that these Toclafane could posibly be those humans who were sent off t "utopia" became the Toclafane. Just before the master escapes he pulls out a memory thing out of the computer! The signal misteriously stops? This shows utopia does not exist. Y would the master send them somewhere for no reason? This place is a factory where humans are turned into Toclafane! They aren then sent back in time and appear on earth! Thats y its the end of the universe at 100 billion! The whole of that time is sent back in time to the 21st centry.

First off, the comment above is just speculation at this point. We will know soon enough whether the rocket in Utopia is related to the last two episodes in any way. (Reminder, though: benevolent Yana worked hard to send those people someplace he thought was good.) Second, and unrelated, "Martha" in the newest entry on her MySpace blog, calls the Toclafane "creatures", and indicates she knows who or what they are at the time of her writing the entry (presumably during or just after LoTL). That would seem to be a source for non-robots until we learn more. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 01:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that as some of this discussion is turning into a forum we should take it to an actual Doctor Who Forum. I use the one here http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ - its free to join and there is already a discussion on this topic there. We can then return to this page after the episode has aired by which time I'm sure we'll have a lot more information. Kelpin 15:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the rift opening instead of "These are my friends"

I think the Voodoo Child scene is pretty epic, you know, with the sky being torn in half. What do people think of having that picture when the rift is at full size with the Toclafane pouring out instead of the current one? Too spoiler-rific? Seriphyn 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that almost seems less spoiler-rific. Sounds like a great idea.pjh3000 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is now the rift forming, though I didn't add it.

82.12.86.64 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers don't matter. We're writing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

President Winters

President Winters describes himself as "President-Elect"--this appears to be a script error, as the president-elect has no political authority and would be unlikely to be flying in Air Force One. The term refers to someone who has won the U.S. General Elction but has not yet been innaugurated as President-- this leaves a two and half month period where the President-Elect's predecessor still exercises authority. It appears that RTD meant "Elected President" instead. Colin Stinton, who played President Winters, is a Canadian by birth and might not have noticed an error in the script. I made note of this error under Continuity. Why was it excised?IanThal 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Because goofs aren't listed here, being a form of trivia that don't have the (potentially) redeeming factor of a larger context, which I suppose is why the Doctor Who articles get away with so many bullet points in the first place. And, of course, it's a bit of an assumption (albeit a fair one) that President Elect even means the same thing in the Dr. Who universe. For what it's worth, the Prime Minister is also referred to as being of Great Britain rather than the UK, which is even less understandable a mistake. --77.99.30.226 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Many American viewers would assume that Great Britain and United Kingdom are synonyms. While many British viewers would assume "President Elect" is just a fanciful synonym for the more commonly used title. Still, in the case of the article on The Shakespeare Code there were quite a few notes distinguishing between actual historical references and decisions made by the production team.IanThal 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait for more information in interviews, I think. You may be right, it may well be an error in Davies's script (and I don't think "Great Britain" was due to David Tennant's position on Northern Ireland, either). However, my immediate inference on hearing "President Elect" was that something had recently happened to the President and Vice-President (impeachment?). Could Winters have been Speaker of the House and simultaneously President Elect? More for Outpost Gallifrey than the article, I'd suggest. --Cedders^tk 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In instances where an American President dies in office or in the rarer instances where he is forced out of office (it's only happened once) the procedure is not to have an election, but to immediately swear in a new president based on the rules of succession outlined in the Twenty-fifth Amendment. So there would only be a "President-Elect" if the episode takes place after the November 2008 General Election and before January 20th, 2009. I think this is just an example of RTD not researching what is a confusing topic even for many Americans.IanThal 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, for a start, if you have been paying attention to New Who, this episode is set in 2008 and so perhaps it is between November 2008 and, January 2009. I believe that RTD used the term President-Elect because Doctor Who is supposed to be set in the real world and I don't think we're going to see George W Bush killed by aliens in the near future (we can only hope though). As for the fact that the President-Elect flew in Air Force One, well you'd better take that up with RTD, although I think you'll find he doesn't give a monkeys about accuracy or continuity.

I'm convinced that the article should refer to him as President-elect Winters. The character clearly states that this is his title. I understand that Air-Force One is the call sign assigned to a plane carrying the incumbent president, which would make the use of it in the episode seem incorrect. However, the plane was referred to as Air-Force One by the newsreader, not by any of the officials, and it seems that there have been historical occasions when a president-elect has used a plane carrying the call sign Air-Force One http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html I think that in lieu of any official clarification, we should be using the term President-elect.Wikifuzzygum 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering he appeared "just after the downfall of Harriet Jones" "eighteen months ago", it would seem the episode is unlikely to be between the dates that would allow him to be President-elect in our world. Probably just another difference (though perhaps an unintentional one) between this world and the Whoniverse. --77.99.30.226 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't make sense. He must've been around before the downfall of Harriet Jones, because he was the one that fired at the Sycorax ship. I'll have to look up the dates, and see what the established time-line is, but that doesn't change the fact that the character refers to himself as President-elect. Let's wait for official confirmation, but until then, we should use what the character says.Wikifuzzygum 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Have you seen Runaway Bride? It's the Webstar he shoots down in 2007, in Runaway Bride, not the Sycorax in '06 (that was Torchwood). He appeared shortly after Christmas Invasion and was Defence Secretary by next Christmas. --77.99.30.226 12:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course that is right, thanks for noting it. However, I think my initial point regarding the President-elect still stands - he calls himslef that, and should therefore be noted as that in the article.Wikifuzzygum 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I'm not arguing that. I was just clarifying some stuff. --77.99.30.226 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Fact file cast list and every reference to the character in the episode, except for that one line of dialogue, calls him the President, not the President-Elect. Considering there is pretty clearly no Tony Blair in this version of reality, there is no reason to think there is a President Bush, either. Winters could easily have been elected in 2004, and re-elected in 2008. This would entitle him to say President-Elect in late 2008, even though he's already President. It would still be weird, though. It's easier to just say that the character mispoke than to say that Air Force One protocols, the news reports, the Master and the Fact File were all wrong about him being President. He could also be "elected" to some pending UN designation for first contact purposes, but that would be stretching. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that Tony Blair exists, being referenced in Rise of the Cybermen and presumably killed in Aliens of London (they had intended to make it more explicit there). --77.99.30.226 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really? Wow. Poor fictional Tony! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Fandom}}

Could {{fandom}} be added to this episode page, and to next week's after broadcast, or is it against a specific policy?--Rambutan (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause the same kind of disagreement as when you added a similar tag to Blink? I imagine most of the arguments against that one apply the same here. No issue with it myself, though I can't see it doing much good. --77.99.30.226 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, it's awfully consensus-unfriendly to ignore all that talk on your little discussion and slap together a template doing what you've been told is uncivil. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits seem to have calmed down quite quickly this time and bits and bobs are being discussed on here first. I had to dash out after Confidential so I might have missed a repeat of last week's offerings of very poorly written, grammatically incorrect and badly spelt edits. Even if I did the article had pretty much settled by midnight when I first got to check it. Is there really a need for such a tag on an article that has become relatively stable now? AlanD 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates that discouage editing aren't needed period. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was fairly stable at least as early as the Confidential finishing anyway, as far as I saw. I don't think it would even need it now. --77.99.30.226 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are needed if they discourage CRAP editing.--Rambutan (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who can't take thirty seconds to format their input or put proper grammar to it is gonna be dissuaded by that. They probably wouldn't even read it. --77.99.30.226 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They are never needed and please calm down Rambut. If editing Doctor Who episodes on Wikipedia winds you up so much why do you do it? There are loads of people on here who would and do pick up the "crap" too. If a concensus of them feel such a tag is needed then so be it but they don't. This is not needed and it is unfriendly. Walk away if it is annoying you that much, you aren't the only Wikipedian. Come back later and do some polishing etc. AlanD 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Winters and UNIT

Did Winters actually say the UN rules stated that UNIT and the US president should handle first contact? I seem to remember that he DID say all first contact should be via UNIT and not on any soverign soil, I don't remember him saying that it was the US President who had to handle it. I thought he justified taking over based on the fact that the UK had elected "an idiot" (or some similar insult) whilst also insinuating it was because Saxon had made such a hash of it and had ignored the rules.AlanD 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited, you're correct. --77.99.30.226 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, it was "ass" not "idiot". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.142.228 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 June 2007.

Winters stated that he's acting as a representative of the UN Security Council's decision to assert authority on the matter.IanThal 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dalek

When the doctor is telling the master about the time war he says that all the dalek were destroyed (-ish) referring to Dalek Cann —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.226.252 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 June 2007.

Good point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.142.228 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 June 2007.

Deadly trap

The Radio Times said that the wheels of a deadly trap were set in motion by Mr Saxon in "The Lazarus Experiment" and the trap would close in "The Sound of Drums". What was the deadly trap? Was it sprung? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.142.228 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 June 2007.

I'm guessing this refers to the "Jones plan"AlanD 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Master/Harold Saxon was not only manipulating Francine Jones but also deloping the Lazarus technology in order to artificially age the Doctor. Both were elements of the trap-- or perhaps they were two traps.IanThal 22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Methinks part of the same trap as Saxon also got Martha's sister to work there. AlanD 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This thread is against WP:FORUM, and unless it is converted to a constructive, article-related discussion by the next editor, it will be deleted as per WP:TALK and WP:VPP#WP:FORUM.--Rambutan (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Seems quite petty to be honest. The original question could be seen as a fan seeking info (not what the forum is for) but it could also be seen as an editor seeking clarification of a plot point with an eye to future edits. The original question refered to quotations from the Radio Times and it appeared to me to be seeking information on where this would fit into the article. The episode itself mentions the Master's schemes. The discussion was probably over. AlanD 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rift

Was the thing that the Master looked into a kind of Rift like the one in Cardiff 'cause the description fits it.(193.109.50.42 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Looked more like the Time Vortex to me but it could be related. AlanD 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it can't go in the article until we know for certain, nor can we speculate. --77.99.30.226 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the Doctor said that it was the "whole of the Time Vortex" they stared into.AlanD 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I was thinking of that final 'rift' in the episode when I replied. Yeah, they looked into the Vortex. I think the OP's point was that as a the "Schism" is a "gap in the fabric of reality", it does kind of sound like the Rift. --77.99.30.226 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh I see. I thought the OP meant the time Vortex due to the "looking into" rather than "opened". Yes it does seem similar to the Rift (which opens up many other possibilities) but no sources as yet. Maybe next week. Worth remembering. AlanD 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Time Lords

A lot of people are saying this is the first time one appears onscreen, but I always thought there was one in the crowd in The Deadly Assassin (also noted in Gary Gillat's 1998 book Doctor Who - From A to Z in the chapter where he discusses the show's generally white casting). Has anyone got Assassin to hand (my tape is miles away) to verify this? 18:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of Gillat's claim but I'm afraid I've yet to spot the fellow in question. Mark H Wilkinson 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To verify this, a citation from Gillat is better than one of us eyeballing a DVD of The Deadly Assassin and saying they can see a black timelord. Looking at the cast list I don't see any obvious candidates for black timelords, but I'm not familiar with all of the actors in question. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If he's in the background then's he probably not on the cast list. My copy of A to Z is unfortunately elsewhere (with my Assassin tape). Timrollpickering 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The flip-side of that Tony is what if someone has a look at the episode and can't see a black TimeLord there? I know that is OR but it would bring into question the Gillat source. What does the BBC say on this? Any comments? It would be a typical RTD thing to have noticed that there has been no black Time Lords before and to have addressed it in this way but to say so would be OR again.

Thinking about it though viewing an episode of something is not included in OR (provided you stick to things said and shown only) otherwise there would be no articles on any show or film... mmmm... If there is one then the Gilliat article is worth mentioning, if not then... ug? What then? AlanD 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume it'd be written as "In his 1998 book Doctor Who - From A to Z, Gary Gillat wrote that a black Time Lord was seen in the Panopticon crowd scenes", or words to that effect. Mark H Wilkinson 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that viewing on DVD is acceptable. But citing a reference is a lot better. It would have to have been an extra, I think. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can attest that none of the actors who play featured parts are black. Though there is the rarity of a Gallifreyan sans British accent in the form of George Pravda. Mark H Wilkinson 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as well as Pravda there were a few actors who used to turn up and add a bit of "color" in British drama productions. Vladek Sheybal, Bert Kwouk, André Maranne, (think Gourmet Night), Saeed Jaffrey, David Kossoff, Miriam Karlin, Alfie Bass and so on. All foreign, or able to look foreign, or convincingly alien, none black. They've probably all done Who at one time or another. By the seventies there was no shortage of black actors who could have done Who as front roles, including Don Warrington who had a big role in Rising Damp, and finally shows up in Rise of the Cybermen as President of Great Britain, so the demographic mix of middle period Doctor Who is as worthy of comment as that of middle-period Coronation Street. I lived in Manchester in the seventies and the contrast between fictional Wetherfield and real life Salford was quite striking. I'm not surprised that one had to fish around amid the extras to find a black actor. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Loss of some discussion from this page

On this page and on a talk page linked to an article about an adjacent episode, there have been some rather hamfisted attempts by an editor to enforce his interpretation of WP:FORUM. There has also been an intervention by at least one relatively inexperienced admin. Please do not edit war with these people, they will be dealt with if they continue to disrupt discussion. Do feel free to continue necessary discussion. This is what this page is for. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh missed that... who did what? Sorry. Inappropriate. PM me, lol. To follow on from what Tony said no one has ownership over pages and we should all be here for the same thing - to produce the best article possible. Take on board the reasons for any reverts to your edits and, if after researching the WP policy in question, you disagree discuss it here and make the edit again. DO NOT, however, just get mad and revert the edits over and over. On the other side of the argument if someone consistently makes poor edits (spelling, quality and reliability) then inform them on their talk page politely. Detail the appropriate way to go about things (there are templates for this available) and if this is ignored then use warnings. It could be that the editor needs some guidance or a mentor. Such schemes are available. If they ignore all of this then the time has come for reporting them as a vandal. Stick to the policies. It is frustrating to see repeated poor edits but if all the editor has ever seen is a bunch of reverts and terse messages then they will simply think that the reverting editors have it in for them.

In short - Be bold and edit but take care to stay within WP policy. If you are reverted then look into (and discuss on here) why you were reverted and take on board people's comments before acting again. BUT if you think someone is... and lets be blunt here... a crap editor then don't get mad, don't war with them assume good faith and try to guide. Also, if you've done that don't fight alone (you become a problem then) follow the proper steps and, if required, report it upwards to admin. AlanD 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

May I just point out that I was blocked for removing comments, and then unblocked within the hour when I showed that I was acting under the auspices of WP:NOT, WP:TALK and a discussion at WP:VPP#WP:FORUM. Inappropriate discussions are subject to removal if there is a clear edit summary and it's not done using an automated tool, according to the admin who unblocked me.--Rambutan (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Which might be the case but Tony did not mention your name and you have admitted that you were blocked. AlanD 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, then I was unblocked since the block was in violation of policy.--Rambutan (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote Saxon site

Seems to me the Vote Saxon site should be mentioned in the Production and publicity section as a BBC marketing ploy for this story. Has it been and gone, or do nobody put it in? I was just looking at the site, and it's changed substantially since the episode aired. It now features some of the same images seen in Matha's flat. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It does have the BBC disclaimer. I hadn't seen it before. Not sure if it is a genuine BBC disclaimer but the quality of the site suggests accuracy (that said it is much better than the VOTESAXON site linked to on the fact file for the episode. I think it merits inclusion but I would like to hear more comments for and against as I've only just come accross it. AlanD 23:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely legit, being linked from the BBC site. --77.99.30.226 23:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see it on there before, just the black one with the very basic stuff on. If it is there then no problem. I PERSONALLY think it deserves a mention. What do others think (or has it gone on already). Ahhh hold on, just visited it via BBC it IS the crappy black paged one updated. I think it gets a mention on the article already but the change in it is perhaps worthy of a mention too AlanD 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, wait, I see that the fancy one is http://www.haroldsaxon.co.uk/, and the plain black one is http://www.votesaxon.co.uk/. Both have BBC disclaimers, and both are linked. The black one is linked from the billboard in the flash page, the other from the regular episode page. The conceit of the nicer one is that it's post-election. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jon Pertwee's cloak

For some reason, the "fact" that John Simm's wearing a third Doctor cloak keeps being inserted as a nod to the Pertwee era. A quick check of the episode reveals it's an overcoat. People might want to be alert to its reinsertion. Mark H Wilkinson 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what he's actually wearing, that coat did remind me strongly of Pertwee's cloak. It'd be worth putting the info back in if a source can be found. MartinMcCann 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was also reminded of Pertwee's cloak, but I did realize what The Master was wearing was a coat. Not sure if the reference is deliberate or not. Tehr 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitchhikers Guide

A couple of people have noticed that the Perception filter is very similar to the Somebody Elses Problem feild but i also saw that the Window to the Space time continuum is very like the Total Perspecitive Vortex?

The Toklafeine have the same voices as the "mice" from the recent Hitchhikers Guide movie. (Two people's comments here) 81.155.212.11 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Teletubbies

Sorry, me again... much like my Winters comment I remember the Teletubbies scene differently (although I'm happy to shut up if I'm wrong). The way I remember it The Master is enjoying the Teletubbies (much as he did the Clangers) but I don't remember him believing that they were real. I seem to recall the scene highlighted another parallel between the Doctor and the Master namely their admiration for mankind's inventiveness and imagination. Anyone else read it this way? If so I'm not proposing that we highlight the parallels to the Doctor (although if sourced (eg In Confidential they did state that they wanted the Master to have the same sense of humour etc as the Doctor, not sure if the Doctor's admiration etc for mankind was mentioned too in this context) then maybe it could go in) but that we remove him believing that the Teletubbies were real. Thanks.AlanD 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what the 'ironically' bit is getting at. He talks about them as if they were real. --77.99.30.226 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression. I thought he was talking about the show and the characters rather than considering them to be genetic constructs or something. I didn't think his talking about them was any stronger than anyone commenting on the show as a reflection of mankind (does that make sense??). Personally I did not, at all get an impression that he considered them to be real nor that he talked about them in that way. If, however, that is what others thought then so be it. Was that everyone's impression? AlanD 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I get what you mean now, but the whole "Have you seen these things? Television in their stomachs: now that's evolution" sounds like he's joking under the conceit that they're real, to me. Of course, he does comment on how this reflects on the planet, too, in a positive way. I wouldn't suggest for a second he thought they really were real, though, if I'm not making my point clear; just that he's joking/reflecting from that perspective. --77.99.30.226 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited, though I'm not sure if your issue is that it seems as if the article is saying he DOES think they're real, or if it just emphasis the wrong bit of the scene (his joke vs. his admiration). --77.99.30.226 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh I get your point. I haven't seen the new edit but yes, my original issue was that I FELT that the article stressed the wrong thing and read as if he believed they were real. Thanks!AlanD 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to say I read the edit you put and that sits much better with me thanks. I just kept reading and rereading it and I just couldn't make it gel with what I'd seen. I see your point now but if it is ok with you I think your new edit is better. AlanD 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood

"Jack also confirms that Torchwood One contained the majority of Torchwood's active staff: there are only six of them left" Are we sure about this? What about Torchwood 2 (in Glasgow, mentioned in Ep 1 of TW?). I recall Jack's comments about "rebuilding" Torchwood, but nothing about them being all that was left.81.96.75.186 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He definitely says there are only six of them. I guess that's 5 Threes plus the weird guy elsewhere. --77.99.30.226 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I definately thought that Jack was working as part of a greater organisation whilst in the Torchwood series (and that the London office was still there (being rebuilt) along with other offices. Jack's comments to the Doctor made me think otherwise. I would assume he has been involved with them on numerous occasions in the past but took over following the battle of Canary Warf. However my impression from his comments was that his team was all there was. Perhaps this means as far as the Torchwood that the Doctor knows about is concerned. The other Torchwoods could do other things (research and development, prisons, archives etc etc.) and be run by folks known to Jack (who is the weird old-guy running the Scottish branch (Leighbridge-Stewart??) blah, blah its all speculation. What isn't speculation is what Jack said. Maybe "confirms" is too strong a term. Perhaps we should simply say he "states" that Torchwood etc etc.AlanD 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article size

I thought I'd pre-empt comments on this later down the line. The continuity, trivia and so on sections for this article have gotten huge. I do not think there is an issue with this and I think it is entirely justified given the amount of trivia, continutity and so on that was packed into this episode (I'm sure we all realised that these sections would be huge just a few minutes into the episode). I just wanted the first comment on this subject to be a postive one. Does everyone agree that whilst we may need to debate some of the things included (and maybe even add more) that in general terms this article is justified in its size due to the nature of the article?AlanD 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just thinking about this myself. I'm not personally against it, but Wiki policy generally is. If it's really an issue, many notes can be integrated with the plot anyway (given out-of-universe plot is not only allowed, but encouraged). --77.99.30.226 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed to grow and grow but at the same time as I watched the episode I knew it was going to be a big one, as they packed so much in. I think the justification is there for all the content but as you say it might be that once the article has matured a bit and we've come to a concensus on the content that the more Gnomish (no insult intended) amongst us can work on polishing the style. AlanD 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Might it be an idea to give an overall summary of some additions to the canon while linking to, say, Gallifrey and the Master? For example, as a Continuity note:

"The episode expands considerably on the Master's history, including his childhood, relation to the Doctor and his involvement in the Time War. See the Master for further details."

The summary could be a little more thorough, of course, but as it stands right now, many Continuity notes only seem relevant to the episode by virtue of being mentioned in it, and would be more at home in their respective articles (where they can also be better integrated) rather than here. --77.99.30.226 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Added info about 'the darkness'

While this may be a small point to add, I think it merits mention as it was a fairly large plot point for Torchwood, and the same words were used 'the darkness is coming'. I may have put it in the wrong section too, but I don't believe it fall into the 'continuity' of Torchwood.

Feel free to comment etc on this.

Turbanator (not signed in)

In order to justify its inclusion, we need to be able to verify it's a reference to that Torchwood arc. Do we have such a citation? Mark H Wilkinson 11:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is in another as well when captian jack talks about death, they may be refering to abadon, who is relesed when it is opened, or the creature that diead in the balck hole episode that may be in the darkness. the both also refer to somthing bneing in the darkness a more important point, this may just be a reference to a future ark though.

also another posability is that the Rift is a portal to the darkness and this may be what the master say when he looked into the wortex and he made a deal with the thing 172.203.95.117 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed this again. Let's just wait and see- the idea of something lurking in the darkness isn't a particularly unique idea, so the connection is fairly tenuous right now. If they're connected in the final episode (somehow), then add it back. --77.99.30.226 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote of the Master - Logopolis comparison

Looking at the [fact file] this makes reference to the Logopolis episode parallel mentioned in this article. To quote

"Peoples of the Earth, please attend carefully" is a very similar to a famous line spoken by the Master in Logopolis: 'People of the Universe, please attend carefully.'

Any idea which epsiode we are trying to quote on the wiki-page? As written I suspect Logopolis in which case (providing fact file is accurate) "Earth" should be replaced by "Universe". Anyone interpret the statement another way? Asperal 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I gather, it's "peoples of the Earth" and "people of the Universe". Somewhere along the line someone has 'corrected' the Earth quote to people. The original was actually quoting this episode, but Logopolis would probably make more sense. --77.99.30.226 14:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's both peoples anyway, just heard the Logopolis clip. --77.99.30.226 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

"Let the work of change begin." Is this spine-chilling coincidence worth a note? MultipleTom 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Gordon Brown say that?

Unless an actual, sourced reference exists as to a connection, it's certainly outside the scope of the article. --77.99.30.226 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth keeping an eye on the news and news commentaries to see if anyone else draws a comparison. Even then I think we'll need a concensus but the right commentaries would be noteworthy in and of themselves. AlanD 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen people draw the connection already, but connections are easy to draw, and the article can end up full of them. The act of requiring sources to say "this was intentional" is, in part, a way of narrowing that down. For example, we've no mention of the Bush caricature/fun-poking aspects of Winters, for similar reasons. --77.99.30.226 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Winters isn't supposed to 'be' Bush. Winters is President-Elect, so Bush is still President. His lack of presence might have to do with Iraq... (written with tongue a least slightly embedded in cheek).

Never said he was, but he does mirror Bush in some respects, and that's what I was getting at. --77.99.30.226 22:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed elsewhere on this page, but most of the relevent dialogue indicates (to me) that the "President-Elect" line was RTD's misunderstanding of what the term actually means, not that Winters is actually President Elect--and that he likely just meant "the elected President", otherwise every other line of dialogue refering to him as president would have been mistaken,

Such a mistake is understandable: Americans might mistakenly refer to Elizabeth II as "The Queen Mother" thinking it a synonym for "Queen." Outside of Winters' invocation of God, there is very little similarity between Winters and Bush. Winters is articulate, speaks with a western accent, and clearly respects the UN Security Council and international law. If there was a Bush parody in the new series is would have been acting PM Joseph Green in "Aliens of London." IanThal 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said that Bush even exists in the Doctor Who Universe? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be worth adding a note that four days after this programme was broadcast, Great Britain did indeed have a new Prime Minister who immediately had a crisis to deal with (obviously not on the same scale as this episode). Clearly luck on the timing from the BBC, but can also draw comparisons years ago with House of Cards (another BBC programme) and Margaret Thatchers departure.

An oddity perhaps not worth noting

Upon rewatching this episode, something caught my eye. The little news tickers at the bottom of the British and American news channels have very different takes on the President running first contact.

• News 24 — Harold Saxon invites President Winters
• AMNN — Saxon forced into an embarrassing climbdown

AMNN also uses a question mark for "First contact" where News 24 uses an exclamation point. I doubt this needs inclusion, quick political jab if anything, but I figured I'd note it anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be too trivial for the article, but it's hardly an oddity-- different journalists, different news services, and different nations' media will interpret events differently. In the case of the televised story, both tickers were correct.IanThal 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Captions

Why aren't we allowed to use captions anymore? We have done so without any trouble since season 1. 84.71.223.233 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB

I notice this edit to this article [1], the grounds being IMDB is not a reliable source, there is nothing in the WP reference to back up this claim (that I can see). However, there is another article that has what I feel to be a spurious claim, and the only evidence used to to back it up is a reference from the IMDB, does anyone know if the claim made by this editor is valid, and if it is, why it is? The Fashion Icon 09:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User based content, [2] sorry! The Fashion Icon 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't make claims unless they're valid - I've been around here a long time and know the precepts, rules, customs, traditional interpretations, common law precedents and ropes!--Rambutan (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the other article to which you refer? The trouble with IMDB is, as you say, its user-based additions — (in)famous content of the past includes putting John Barrowman in episodes in which he doesn't appear, and Kevin Eldon as Davros in The Parting of the Ways. A pity, really, as it's a marvellous resource in many respects. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ray D'Arcy, is the article, it has been an ongoing thing, you may get more of a fell on the talk page, thanks for the comment The Fashion Icon 11:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning

There is no reason to specifically state IMDB - Golding wasn't credited in the episode, and it needs a reliable source. Saying "not IMDB" implies that DigitalSpy, the Sun, the Daily Mail and Freemaagyeman.com are all acceptable. Plus, it keeps getting added with a low level of warnings, so let's steep them up. Finally, don't revert without an explanation.--Rambutan (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason to specifically state IMDB is that many users, new and old, believe it's a reliable source, and therefore there is more danger of it being added than other sources. There is no reason to change the wording, and there is no reason to repeat the warning unnecessarily as you have done. That's why I reverted your edit. ugen64 06:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but there's no reason to imply that the Sun is an acceptable source. Saying "reliable" blankets this, as per WP:RS. And there clearly is a need to overstate the warning, because it keeps being ignored by vandals. Please do not just revert, await consensus. I'm going back to the pre-dispute version so consensus can be got; if you want ANI then go ahead.--Rambutan (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to expressly state that The Sun is not a reliable source because anyone with common sense knows it's not a reliable source. Looking through the history, any recent vandalism involving adding this specific statement has only been done using IMDB as a source, so there is really no reason to confuse people with the new wording, which is less explicit and more confusing to me. In addition there is really no reason to spam the warning. And finally, I doubt that those "vandals" you mention will pay attention to these warnings at all, overstated or not. ugen64 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of it's been done without a source at all. And finally, then they'll get blocked!--Rambutan (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OR

"Is a major factor" - I can't see a source for that--Rambutan (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then add one. Majorly (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Second and Fourth Doctor's"

Under "References to other stories", first line. It should read: "...the confection is associated with the Second and Fourth Doctors" NOT "...the confection is associated with the Second and Fourth Doctor's". 210.154.124.5 07:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I reverted back to your edits, and I understand that it may have been reverted if the editor did not see the grammar, But to remove your talk from the discussion page is not correct either. Triwbe 07:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was the possessive rather than the plural, and so replaced the apostrophe. Sorry. But cocking up formatting and not signing comments and sounding hostile isn't very nice, you know.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "cocking up formatting": I'm new to this, educate me. As for not signing, as I said, I'm new to this and forgot. Oh, and there was no hostility intended, just frustration at being accused of vandalism.210.154.124.5 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Politics...

Pertaining to this edit: the Harold Saxon website does not say or suggest that Saxon was a member of no political party. What it says is that all the parties agreed on him. If the Lib Dems and the Tories - for example - agreed to support one of Gordon Brown's bills, one could write that same sentence, but to say that Gordon is a member of no political party would, of course, be nonsense. To say that Saxon was non-affiliated is original research.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from not just basing the edit on the Saxon website but watching the programme there is in fact this statement in the Biography section He has transformed the nature of British politics by daring to stand apart from the party system..As for your suggestion in one of the edit summaries that one has to be a party member to be Defence Minister that is not true you merely have to be a member of the House of Commons or Lords .Garda40 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but you have to be nominated by the PM to be a minister, and in the whole of history, no PM has ever nominated an independent MP - in fact, to my knowledge, there have only ever been two independent MPs at all, so I assumed that we'd use common sense here. Although something is technically possible, it's not really within the bounds of reality, and speculating on the subject is original research, since there is this ambiguity.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got no opinion; I'm just noting the irony about an independent PM being "outside the bounds of reality" when it's in a show with a near-immortal time-traveller in the lead role :P (And remember, he did do the hypnotising on a nationwide scale) Will ^(talk) 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought there's a line of dialogue in SoD about candidates defecting to Saxon's party. That sounds to me like he belonged to some political party, though not necessarily any of the ones currently active in the real UK. 23skidoo (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"As soon as you saw the votes swinging my way, you all abandoned your parties and jumped on the Saxon bandwagon". No indication either way. Will ^(talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

paradox machine

does anyone tjink it is possible that the doctor was planning to use the tardis as a paradox machine in Father's Day (Doctor Who) when he say that he can fix everything when he has his ship back.

No. Please do not use these talk pages ofr fan questions. There are plenty of other DW forums on the web for this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else hear that?

The rhythm of the drums themselves, as performed by various characters through the episode (a homeless man, Margaret Jones, The Master) is the beat of the series' theme song. That's certainly not an accident. Worth a mention? Mael-Num (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your reliable source to make absolutely sure that it's certainly not an accident? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary, as it's common knowledge. Common enough, in fact, that another astute editor already placed it in the article. I simply overlooked it. Mael-Num (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is necessary; as it is, a reliable source was found. Had there not been one, I would have had to remove the information. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and clearly the cited "reliable source" used the same method that I, and likely the original author of that portion of the article, did to determine that fact: we listened and recalled the theme song. It's...troubling that you would require someone to jump through hoops to find a citation for something as obvious as that. Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "original research" and "clearly perceivable". This is a case of the latter. TreasuryTag, I wonder if you would question a description of Tom Baker's Doctor as "curly-haired" in absence of a "reliable source?" --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect

There's only 2 months every 4 years (tops) where someone is ever called President-Elect of the United States of America. No doubt this isn't common knowledge in England, but it's a fact. This is documented in the referenced pages, and isn't speculative in any way.

If however, you don't think this is a fact, then let's hear it.

Mael-Num (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who is clearly set in a different universe to us. In that universe, there were three Xmas Day alien invasions. I didn't notice them in real life; if that difference exists, it is reasonable to think that other differences also exist. For example, I could enter into the article, "A mistake in the episode is that time-travel is actually impossible." This is actually no different to what you wrote; it is assuming that all the laws, facts and characteristics of our universe applies to the Whoniverse; but they clearly don't!

I would adivse you to thoroughly read our policy on original research, since you seem to have a difficulty understanding that your own new thoughts aren't allowed here! Thanks ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How amusing that you condescend to me regarding original research, and defend your position with a good chunk of it of your own. Very well, if it is so "clear" then why this person's comment?[3] Or better still, why use the term "President-Elect" at all? Or "United States"? Can we also not conclude that residents in the "Whoniverse" don't eat their own parents upon the occasion of their 30th birthday? I mean, we've never seen that this doesn't happen, and it is a parallel universe, so these people aren't us.

Your position is laughably contrarian. I'd recommend you unclench. Mael-Num (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend strongly that you read our policies on civility and consensus. Now, the definition of "original research", which is banned, is unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas. Since your fact/idea/argument/speculation is unpublished (I assume) it falls into that category.

And no, I won't revert my revert, I'm not required to until I breach the three-revert rule and don't intend to do so voluntarily. Let's let others comment on the discussion here first. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing out policies. Might I also point out that finger pointing and whining about civility goes against the policy of not pointing fingers and whining.

You also seem to not have very carefully read 3RR. Here's an interesting bit:

Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

All that bureaucracy aside, let's get to the actual matter at hand. Are you claiming that in the Doctor Who continuity, it's not safe to assume that the political bodies being represented in their fictional version of early 21st century earth follow the same procedural processes that ours do? That seemed to be a fairly major point above, with the Tony Blair bit, and the consensus seemed to be arguing that they do. Do you disagree? Mael-Num (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When you apply real world rules to a fictional universe you are making big mistake and engaging in WP:OR. In the first place even if the November to January timing was being adhered to in the storytelling it is never stated onscreen. Since this is an encyclopedia we deal only with the facts as presented and not with speculation about what might be meant. Please note that there are plenty of fan forums and blogs on the net where you can make this point. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is stated that he is President-elect. The character introduces himself as such during the press conference. I'm pretty sure that makes it canon. Why use the term at all? Can you state when else someone might be President-elect and the date on the calendar not being as described? There seem to be some extraordinary claims happening on the part of other editors regarding this matter. I'd like to see some evidence to back up these claims. Mael-Num (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. There is no evidence to back up any claims, yours or ours. This is a fictional universe. I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand. The elections could be in July, or the month of Troon for that matter. One other thing to note. If the real world rules were being applied to this episode Nov-Jan is winter in the UK and there is sunlight for only seven or so hours a day. The weather tends to be cold and rainy. We see none of this in the episode. Again an encyclopedia can only deal with the evidence that is clearly stated onscreen. Your speculation will not be put into the article. Three separate editors have found it to be inappropriate so the only disruptive behaviour, so far, has been yours. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're gaming at this point. We know he is the President-elect of the United States. This is stated. There's only one time that there is a President-elect of the United States. We must assume that the process is the same because it isn't shown to be different. If your claim is that it is different, then you must demonstrate this, as it is an extraordinary claim.

Please note also that I'm not speaking in terms of what weather "tends to be" or how many hours of sunlight exist in a day (in a 40 minute story, no less). The fact is that there's a very brief period of time when a President-elect for the US even exists. This fact is already referenced in the article, and has been an established consensus edit for some time now. I'm merely fleshing out that comment.

This is pretty standard stuff, guys. I'm a little shocked that I even have to argue this; it's like rebutting someone's claim that the sky isn't blue. Mael-Num (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the link to the article defining the details of what the title President-elect means is sufficient to explain this. If someone lacks understanding of what that means, including the time period in which it would apply, they can click on that link. The only thing that would require explanation here is for deleting the reference to his stated title of "President-elect" - to claim that because the scrolling credits say otherwise, when the character states his title within the dialogue, would require some extraordinary speculation as to why Winters would either lie about his title, or that some alternate-universe form of government exists in which President-elect and President are one in the same. Otherwise, let's stick to the facts as presented (that the Winters character is "President-elect") and avoid unncessary detail (such as an explanation of the position) and speculation (such as Whoniverse government theories). --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're saying that he is President-elect, and that the term is valid, and the article as-written has referenced the real-world facts of what exactly the President-elect of the United States is, then what's the problem with including the dates? The show's all about time travel, wouldn't it be germane to include that information if it was in the story? Why would the writers include that detail if not to clue us into the date? Hasn't anyone considered that...that the writers are telling us when this is taking place without having one of the characters pick up a newspaper and read it off? Mael-Num (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on selected/elected as well,Shubopshadangalang. I should have noticed that myself...well done. Mael-Num (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way on this one, honestly, as far as including the details. It helps to understand a small amount of context of the story. But I can also see the argument that this is a minor detail, and that it could be "unnecessary information" at the worst. But if it really does serve a purpose as to place the timeline of the story, maybe it's worth noting, as long as it doesn't lean torward speculation. There's no reason to expect that a drastic change in U.S. electoral processes have taken place here, so a statement from real-world examples should be perfectly valid. Your "30th Birthday" example is extreme, but makes the point - there's no reason to question every detail - we must assume things are most likely as they are in the real world (especially when real-word terminology such as "President-elect" is utilized without an alternate explanation) unless explained otherwise within story canon. That being said, I really don't think the time of year has any relevance, unless it makes a difference to Martha's year-long journey somehow or some other story detail. Details like this in article should be reasonably verifiable, but also should be worth noting to begin with. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, whenever there are significant differences between our world and theirs (or any version of earth), the writers make that clear (Hey look...airships!). The fact that they are using a term that has a real-world meaning is significant. I could see some debate as to the year. I went with 2008 because they reference events that are known to have happened in 2007 (a couple of alien invasions) and it was the next election year, but the writers (and the Doctor) seem to like 2012 as well. I went with the earlier date because I'm assuming, with the series ongoing (and its spin-offs), there will likely be invasions between 2008 and 2012 that would have been mentioned, but were not, therefore it's most likely not much farther along than '08. Mael-Num (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing I just realized is that the time of year may be relevant to the larger story arc of that season, or an over all plan for the series. For example, this helps place the relative time of these events in relation to the events of Voyage of the Damned, which would be at Christmas, possibly following very closely to the post-US-election events of late fall or early winter of 2008, 2012 or 2014. Also, it may not necessarily indicate a political change for the President-elect to be representing the country - it's very possible that he is currently serving in another official capacity, such as Vice President, Ambassador, etc, and as he is acting post-election, uses the President-elect title, accurately, but for added impact for his actions. Obviously none of such speculation should be in the article, but I'm trying to show further support for why these details should be included for reference, as they may help place the story context. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mael, for someone who warned about assuming good faith, you firstly suggested that making a single revert is disruptive (it is *NOT*), and then said "You are gaming now." Please accept that unless you have a source to back up your unpublished argument that the story takes place in November or whatever, then it can't be added. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For someone who warned yadda yadda blah blah...what? Was there a point to that? Gee, I hope I'm not distracting you.

I also hope that you're not showing signs of Encyclopaedic Megalomania. I've seen it before, and it's not pretty when full-blown. Mael-Num (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take this matter to ANI, since you're not interested in constructive discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The only source needed here would be to one covering the U.S. election process, although that's clearly an issue of common knowledge. Just as a way of satisfying this though, here's a link for you: [4] --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No, all that sources is that in the real-world United States political system, the president-elect is that official. I don't see the US Department of State confirming that Doctor Who is an accurate representation of US politics, or that it is set in the real-world. If it was intended to be 100% true to life, then it would involve real politicians and real characters. The Master doesn't exist (if I remember rightly), there is no Senator or Governor called Arthur Winters... therefore, any world containing such characters is clearly not ours, and thus doesn't necessarily have the same politics. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pure speculation on your part. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Something depicting reality, like the news, depicts real-life figures. You wouldn't find Rose Tyler on a news-bulletin. Therefore anything depicting something unreal, isn't depicting something real-life. And if it's not real-life, there's no reason to treat it like real life. Take this example: I write in the article, "An error was made in the script, as time-travel isn't actually possible." That's true; I could find reliable sources for it.

But it would be nonsense; we know that Doctor Who is fiction. And since it's fiction, and has that element of unreality, it's safe to assume that it has others. Like Martha Jones' existence, like the Daleks' existence, and we don't know what else. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fiction that goes out of its way to model itself on our world. That's why they use terms like "Prime Minister" and "President". If The Doctor had ended up in a version of England where the Prime Minister gets the job by yanking a sword out of a stone, then fine, you've got an argument that we shouldn't apply our rules of electoral procedure to the fictionalized world that we are looking at. But, as it is, we've been told that this is "our world" or Margaret and Rose's world, which is for all intents and purposes, our world, minus some alien invasions and such.

Now, TT, it's your turn. Where's the "sword in the stone" that serves as your evidence that this President-elect isn't meant to be the same as ours? Mael-Num (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't assume that because it's a fictional universe, that for some unstated reason the U.S. governmental system is different. To do that is speculation. To take information at face value as it's presented within the context of the story, such as the known definition of "President-elect", would be the reasonable, non-speculative approach. As Mael pointed out, differences in the universes are pointed out explicitly (airships example) within the story. If someone's drinking a glass of milk (in a Doctor Who episode), we can't expect an explanation of whether milk has the same properties in this fictional universe as it does in ours, and you certainly can't assume that it is likely toxic, and that you should have a suspenseful worry at the situation and fear the safety of the character because it hasn't been explicitly defined for us that milk is drinkable. When they say "milk" you just assume they mean "milk" unless they say otherwise. I'm not sure what else I can say.... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get this, do you? The onus is on YOU to source information YOU add. Since the information is an unpublished argument, the definition of original research, and your (anyway flawed) common sense, even if it was perfect, is not acceptable; the case is as good as made. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not (the case having been made, that is). A reference was provided that defines the election process. You're the one speculating that the U.S. Government operates differently in the Who universe. Provide a source for that. Otherwise, real-world examples (especially in a section titled "Outside Sources") are perfectly relevant. The burden here is on you, Treasury. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it.

Also, I want to point out that WP:NOCOMMON is an essay, not a policy. Anyone can write one. For the record, there actually is a such thing as common sense, despite what you may have read...and regardless of the presence or absence of it in any given individual. ;) Mael-Num (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, unless you can provide a reliable source with which we can verify your claim, it stays out of the article. Simple as that. Lets forget all the other doctor who stuff that's been used in the argument and just focus on this — come back with a reliable source, or don't come back at all.--Phoenix-wiki 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? That elections take place in early November and inauguration takes place in late January? Done. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To throw in some more outside perspective, I think this is fairly simple. Since the specific date of the episode (and you're not that specific, you're guessing within a three month period) is never established, you have no proof if it is 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or even 2012 (another election year, and a year specifically visited by the Doctor before). If you can't even establish a year let alone the month, then the date has absolutely no bearing on the article or the story, and has no use on Wikipedia. You can think that it's November 2008 or January 2013, but you have no proof either way, so it fails notability on Wikipedia simply because you're taking a guess. An educated guess maybe, but a guess none the less. Either find a source specifying the date, or remove the guess. It's that simple.

Assuming the Whoniverse follows the same laws, dates, and other such bits is also just a guess, as a fictional story can only take what is established in the story as "facts". For a show aging from the 1960s, real world facts have little merit as the timeline has been changed quite a lot over the decades. The359 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity errors over the course of the series are an entirely separate issue. We can only look at the current series at face value. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Point is the Whoniverse has long seperated itself from the Real World. The very fact that a President-Elect has any powers just goes to show that you cannot apply Real World laws to a Fictional Universe television show, simply because the show's producers can choose on a whim to ignore any Real World element they wish. The359 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's a big difference between using reason and "taking a guess". This may sound a little presumptuous but: most of science...also guesswork to you? Mael-Num (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia, not a Science Experiment. Whatever you want to call it, it's original research. It's not even useful to the article. The359 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest not having the attitude that your ability to guess is better than established, referenced facts on Wikipedia. I don't care how good you are at guessing, you have no reference, so you have no fact, so your information does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines. The359 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's original research, if unsourced, to suggest that the Who universe by and large ignores realities of the real world even when not explicitly stated. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, we're interested in verifiable statements, not facts. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If all reliable references said the world was flat, our article would say that. Jombo seems to agree.--Phoenix-wiki 21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)