Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Reboot

The reboot page lists the new series of Doctor Who as an example of a reboot. I've disputed this on the discussion board there and have considered just deleting the reference there (to be honest it seems a little confused in places with regard to reboot, reimagining, retcon and remake but I'm going to keep out of that). As far as I'm aware the new series is not a reboot, has never been stated as a reboot and has never been treated as such. The recent mention of Gallifray, the use of the TARDIS, the appearance of Sarah-Jane Smith and K-9 and the appearance of the head of an original Cyberman (amongst a whole host of other things) places this firmly as a continuation. As far as I'm aware Russell T. Davies has never stated this to be a reboot and has said quite the opposite. I believe I am right in stating that he has made various comments that bluntly state that this is a continuation of the same universe but that he isn't going to explain everything that has happened between the old series, the film and the new series.

So... what do you think? You can either debate it here or over there. Up to you really. Thought you'd want to know. AlanD 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to go unless you wish to add to my comments in discussion. Someone has deleted Doctor Who from there already (that was quick!) but you may wish to add something to the discussion page all the same as they haven't yet. AlanD 23:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I know that Peter Cushing played Doctor Who in two movies:

Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)

Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. (1966)

--Freeport38 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in there, under Spin-offs. --Ebyabe 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the new series more accurately described as a revival than a reboot. GracieLizzie 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some justification to using this term. It is established that a war has taken place between time-travelling races. So events in the "classic" series need not longer be part of history.80.193.203.174 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this logic. Could you clarify please? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a reboot at all. It's a direct continuation - the show has made several links and references to incidents and events from the "classic" series. A reboot is an effective wiping of the slate, a fresh start, and the new series does not fall under this classification. Squirminator2k 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the blindingly obvious - the new series of Doctor Who is being marketed as a new series of Doctor Who. Not as a reboot, revamp, spin-off, UFO or any other kind of identified or unidentified object. I wish people would read their own words when they start these kinds of discussions. 90.152.12.130 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there could be some confusion between the UK and US meaning of "series". In the UK, series means the same as the US "season". In the US, new series means a new show, eg the various Star Trek shows. Star Trek: Enterprise is the fifth Star Trek series.

as its technically a brand new show, do we need a disambiguation page?--Secfrance 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

March Debut For New Series 3?

The article confidently states that doctor Who will return in March. Has this been announced officially? I know we're expecting it, but it just might be early April. [Dave F 24/2/'07]

It hasn't been officially announced, but apparently David Tennant said that the show would return in March in a recent issue of TV Times. It's listed on Outpost Gallifrey's News Page here (scroll down a bit, to the section "TV Times: DW returns in March, and Tennant to stay"). You're right that we should have a reference for that March start, though. I don't have access to the TV Times, so I'll put a temporary citation to OG in the article. If anyone out there does have the TV Times issue, please replace the OG reference with one from the magazine. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think I still have the TV Times I did get it and added a reference to Smith and Jones (Doctor Who). So I copy and pasted it from there ^_^. While we are on the subject though do we have any Australian fans who can replace the TV Week reference in Torchwood with a stronger less guesswork-y one? Or should we just use OG as a reference there? --GracieLizzie 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both....but even Tennant might not be privy to the whims of the schedulers. I am betting on a March start but wouldn't be surprised by an April one [Dave F. 25 Feb 2007]

I think that we're OK as long as we have the citation. If the schedulers decide on April instead, we can change it — but to the best of our current infoormation from what might reasonably be considered reliable sources, it's March. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - now confirmed by DWM to be 24th March - Yaaaay! Nice birthday pressie for me. DavidFarmbrough 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey, quoting DWB, is reporting that it's been changed to 31st March because of the European Championship. -- Gridlock Joe 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The European what championship? If this is a football thing, didn't they know baout this before setting the date? RT-D say they have had this date planned for months. I am still more inclined to believe DWM than DWB going on their past records. 82.44.214.197 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the European Football Championship. Moot point, see immediately below. -- Gridlock Joe 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the press release for DWM 380 (quoted on the OG News Page, says "and more exclusive news in Gallifrey Guardian - including three new episode titles, and one very important piece of information which was all true and correct when we went to press, but is, um, not actually true and correct anymore. And it's printed on four different pages." They're referring to the date. --The Missing Hour 02:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who gives one now? It's already started! Ninington 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I've just added a criticisms section, the references are on the AOL Doctor Whp message board if anyone wants to add a link-GeorgeFormby1

Removed. Message boards are not acceptable sources. CovenantD 10:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be relevent to add this to the viewship section?

In the latest issue of NEO Jonathan Clements discusses the dubbing and such of Who in Japan, and he mentions that apparently that the audience is rather confused as it has been aired at such a late time slot (11:55-0:42!) that they don't realise it's a family show. He also translated some comments from Japanese messageboards wherein the users say they think Billie Piper is fat and looks like a Hippo ¬_¬()... but I am not sure how relevant that is as it's just a nasty message posted by some non-notable person on the 'net, however it was reprinted by a magazine. What do you guys think? --GracieLizzie 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Billie Piper comments don't seem worthy of merit, but a short cited sentence about audience confusion about "Dokutaa Fuu" might be appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, maybe the comment on Billie Piper might be irrelivent but I think the time slot in Japan, etc.. is good.--Wiggstar69 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Added it, I'd misplaced my March copy of NEO so it took a while to find the reference. But I found a copy in WHSmiths today and I managed to jot down the page number and specifics. The actual sentence of 'interest' was "Broadcast in a relatively late night spot, Doctor Who has mystified adult viewers who do not realise it is a family show." -Jonathan Clements... the main body of the write-up was about the voice actors who dubbed certain characters. --GracieLizzie 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comic Relief

Come on Wiggstar69, that wasn't an appearance by the Tenth Doctor (bearded and with a Scottish accent)! And the sketch is hardly notable enough to include in the article. Stephenb (Talk) 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RND Charity Spoof

I put the artical under Charity episodes of doctor who, on the grounds that he used the sonic screwdriver and as iv'e mentioned under history has used a scottish accent before.

'On March 16, 2007 as part of Red Nose Dayon BBC1/2, The Tenth Doctor appeared with Catherine Tate in a short sketch in which he was teaching a class and she was an irritating student.'--Wiggstar69 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a sketch where David Tennant used the sonic screwdriver while playing a teacher with a Scottish accent, there's no real evidence that it was meant to be the Tenth Doctor, particularly by the DW production team (by which these things are usually determined). Stephenb (Talk) 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, although, having used David Tennant and having the sonic screw driver in the scetch is grounds enough to at least hold under the charity section, not as an episode but at least at a scetch which was obviously intending him to look like the doctor. On top of this may I remind you that the cloaths he was wearing were identical to those of the tenth doctor, all this is shurly enough for it to get a mention.--Wiggstar69 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

His clothing was similar but far from the same. I don't think you can read too much into the sketch, it's just too silly (the sonic screwdriver having a "turn people into Rose Tyler action figures" setting? I know the Master had a device which did something vaugely similar but it didn't turn people into dolls of other people). However I am in half a mind as to whether to mention it here, it doesn't feature the Doctor perse and cannot be really fit into canon at all... I have mentioned it on the Doctor Who spoofs page though. --GracieLizzie 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The sketch is as GracieLizzie put it, 'silly' and obviously was never intended to be anything other then exactly that, but as iv'e metioned (the above) there are enough connections beetween this scetch and Doctor Who to at least hold a place under the charity 'or' spoof section of this page.--Wiggstar69 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I am two minds, one part of me thinks "Mr. Logan almost certainly wasn't the Doctor so we can't include it!" the other half of me thinks "But it referenced Doctor Who in many ways, and therefore should be mentioned". So I am having a hard time being clear-cut about this. --GracieLizzie 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but going on your descriptions, it doesn't sound quite "Who-ish" enough for the "Charity episodes" section - not on a par with Dimensions in Time, Curse of Fatal Death or the mini-episode, but it sounds like there are enough references to mention it on the Doctor Who spoofs page. I'd put it in that article rather than here. --Brian Olsen 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It has already been put onto the Doctor Who spoofs page thanks to GracieLizzie. The question is is it sutable to take it further onto the main page. May I remind you this has been done with many other similar spoof/Charity, episode/sketch's. So I feel it would fit comfotably in with them.--Wiggstar69 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO "Doctor Who has been satirised and spoofed on many occasions by comedians" is sufficient, esp as it is mentioned on the spoofs page. Notwithstanding, this was (IMO) most definitely not a charity episode, for the reason it was one in a series of several Catherine Tate sketches with different celebrity guests. It was therefore a Catherine Tate special, not a DW special (and, for that reason - even starring Tenant - did not have to make sense as a DW episode). Ros0709 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In taking a look at the description of the sketch on the spoof page, I would say no, it definitely doesn't belong on the main page. The whole purpose of spinning off a page is to cut down on the size of the main article, and this doesn't seem notable enough to merit an exception. --Brian Olsen 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats is fair enough, enough people have expressed a dislike to this small section and its probably (in the long run) not going to be a huge matter of interest.--Wiggstar69 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

List of episodes and serials

One of the prime reasons for people visiting the Doctor Who page is to get a List of episodes and serials -- this is now carefully hidden halfway down the page under the cryptic caption "Format". Could either a link be placed near the top of the page, or the title "Format" be replaced with something like "Format and episodes" so that people know where to look in the page. Rnt20 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC) "No. of episodes 724 (as of 25 December 2006) (List of episodes)" Matthew

Ninington 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a heading so it shows up in the Contents block. Dmforcier 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Series 3 trailer

Beginning in the 2007 episode Smith and Jones, Freema Agyeman will play Martha Jones, the Doctor's next ongoing companion.[26] Apart from her name, the casting of family members and the information that she will be a medical student, no details are currently available about her character.

There's a bit more on this which can be gleaned from the trailer now on the BBC website, plus the link itself may be of interest to the reader. Trouble is, some of the BBC content is UK-only, so would someone outside of the UK like to confirm it works for them?

main page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/ :: trailer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/index_trailer.shtml

Ros0709 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is pointless now, as everyone has found out. Look: Martha Jones. Ninington 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ninington 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need so much information about Doctor Who in Wikipedia?

I know all Doctor Who fans seem to love putting in Doctor Who info, but really, do we need so much of it? I'm guilty of it myself of course, but it just seems to me that if every tiny bit part player who's ever been in the show gets it mentioned in their article, down to what role they played and when it was, etc, why isn't the same attention to detail given to every show?

Here's just two examples: Maurice Denham and June Brown. Both these people have been in dozens of shows and Denham has 162 credits listed on IMDb, yet he gets a very sketchy article with an entire paragraph devoted to Doctor Who. I know you can find hundreds articles like this if you look. I think either the extreme detail about Doctor Who should be reduced, or loads more details should be added about every other piece of work the actors have done.

Nettyboo 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia - what little beauty there is, mind - is that if you think something needs addressing, you can do it yourself. However while we're on the subject, we don't really need articles detailing the anatomy of a Nidoqueen, nor do I think we need an explanation of what a door is, but hey ho. Squirminator2k 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that maybe there should be some kind of decision about the amount of information that should be put in. Do we need to have He made a guest appearance in the BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who in a serial called The Twin Dilemma (1984), which was also the first story to star Colin Baker in the title role as the Sixth Doctor. His character, Professor Edgeworth, was revealed to be the Time Lord Azmael. A later association with Doctor Who was his performance in the radio serial The Paradise of Death in 1993 alongside Jon Pertwee written when we could have Denham appeared in Doctor Who twice.

Obviously this goes for Star Trek, The Simpsons and any other shows that fans get hold of and put every bit of minutiae in. We don't get the same amount of information for shows like Secret Army, Minder and Rumpole of the Bailey, and there are hundreds of shows that don't even get a mention, let alone 2,000 articles featuring every minute detail.

Nettyboo 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a function of Wikipedia's systemic bias: many people who are interested in spending time working on Wikipedia tend to be fans of something or another. The reason that there's so much more detail about Doctor Who than about Secret Army is that there aren't as many people obsessively devoted to Secret Army. There haven't been hundreds of books published about Secret Army, or thousands of websites. In short, there isn't as much passionate interest in Secret Army as there is in Doctor Who. Because there is a lot of passionate devoted interest in Doctor Who, many individuals have contributed information related to Doctor Who to Wikipedia. This does sometimes result in disproportionate emphasis on Doctor Who and other subjects of fannish interest.

WikiProject Countering systemic bias is dedicated to addressing these sorts of imbalances. They tend to focus on improving articles in neglected subjects, such as articles about non-Western cultures, but I'm sure they'd be interested in your concerns. As you indicate, the choices for addressing this systemic bias in actors' articles are either to cut back fannish information, or to add more information about other aspects of the actors' careers to balance it out. While there's certainly a place for drastic editing, I think that when an article is little more than a stub with an overgrown Doctor Who section it's generally better to add than to subtract. I think the thing to do is ask whether the information might be of interest to a non-Doctor Who fan reading the article.

I've pruned Maurice Denham's entry slightly — in that case, I think that readers of the article probably won't care that Denham's character in The Twin Dilemma turned out to be a Time Lord named Azmael, but they might possibly be interested that it was Colin Baker's first story. The mention in June Brown doesn't seem terribly disproportionate to me — the only problem I saw is that it was redundant to mention her role both in the text and in the filmography.

It's good to remind editors that this is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and that actors' pages should reflect that. When I created a page for Helen Griffin, I tried to keep her Doctor Who involvement in proportion. Moderation is the keyword here: fans should be moderate in what we add, and try to present a balanced portrait. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is people can only write about what they know about and there happen to be a lot of people who watch Doctor Who and know a suprising amount about it. So why not cut down whats being writen? My reasons against this are purly based on matter of what interest for people who are reading the page, obviously your rarly going to find a non-doctor who fan reading these sites so I think the information can stay in the amount it is now and it will sit comfortably. Although I do often cut down what people have written when the start describing to a ridiculas detail. I say keep it as it is.--Wiggstar69 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah — it's common sense, really. If an actor's page goes off in irrelevant details about how the character they played in a 1974 Doctor Who story later appeared in a Virgin novel, that should obviously be deleted. But if it's got interesting and relevant information about his work on the programme, or even an anecdote from filming sourced to the DVD commentary, I don't see anything intriniscally wrong with that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but I frankly fail to see where your problem lies. More information than is necessary is definitely no problem when it comes to Wikipedia, particularly with articles that are "fannish" like Doctor Who. Even considering Wikipedia's Countering systemic bias, or whatever rabble they call it, as long as the article isn't ridden with POV's, then who cares? You know how much trouble I've saved by being able to look up specific episodes by various articles of information on Doctor Who, instead of just popping in DVD's and guessing? Yeah, it's geeky as hell to track a particular episode down by finding which planet is in it, but hey, it works! Besides, if this were an academic text book I had to consult in a class, I would say you have a point, but since Wikipedia isn't exactly something a sane professor will let you use for serious research, I use it for personal research and entertainment. At that point, your complaint is rather baseless. Shadowrun 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's good to be able to find all this information, the complaint I have is that the ratio of Doctor Who information to pretty much anything else on Wikipedia is 100 to 1. And according to Wikipedians, appearing on Doctor Who was any actors claim to fame. It is in effect a few weeks work for an actor, yet on any one of the actors pages they get heaps of information about it, and almost nothing about anything else. Here are a few more examples. Jacqueline Pearce (Blakes 7 mentioned in passing, Doctor Who a paragraph), Trevor Martin (surely he's done something else in his career!), Richard Hurndall (yes, I know he was the Doctor, but 72 credits in IMDb and the rest of his career is hardly mentioned), Gerald Flood, Martin Jarvis, Jean Marsh, etc etc etc. I could go on and on. When Derek Waring died, someone put Doctor Who in brackets on the obituary page - he was in two episodes! That was what he was supposed to be remembered for. That's like an eighty year old man dying and everyone remembering him for nothing else but the paper round he had for a few weeks when he was fifteen. Nettyboo 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The way to fix this is not to get rid of the information on these peoples pages about Doctor Who, but instead to write more on the other parts in their career. Unfortunatly I don't know much about the other parts of these peoples lives, but if it matters to somone that much then they will do somthing about it.--Wiggstar69 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, if it hasn't already been done (and if people have the time and web resources), one might create a Doctor Who wiki all on its own, similar to the Star Trek version over at http://memory-alpha.org ... Umrguy42 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Try http://tardis.wikia.com Gwinva 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT? That's like saying: Do we really need to know if there's life on other planets? Do we really need to know who our parents are? Do we really need to know where we were born? Do we really need to explore space? That natural questioning is what defines us as humans! If not for that, we would simply be monkeys with MP3 players!

I agree! If anything, we need to put MORE information in the Doctor Who page! Badnewswade 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the trick is to ensure that it does not turn into a "fan-site" but be still be good and factual in a encyclopedic sense for Doctor Who. --Mikecraig 03:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Inspired Other Shows?

Would adding what shows/movies were influnced by Doctor Who be acceptable for the page? I'd say Bill and Ted took Doctor Who and made it into a comedy. (Matthewmilam 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

I am unsure they did, the Bill and Ted page mentions that there original time machine was a van (or car) and they changed it in pre-production due to it similarity to the De Lorean from Back to the Future which implies to me that they weren't aware of the TARDIS. Also I'd be wary of this section, even though it does sound interesting, I think it might invite a lot of OR and that we might be always chasing people for citations.--GracieLizzie 10:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Bill and Ted's phone booth definitely isn't bigger on the inside than the outside!

I always thought that was the joke- they cram so many people in that tiny box!Shubopshadangalang

Missing Episodes

An anonymous editor added "It has been reported that in 1972 all episodes then made were known to exist at the BBC, whilst by 1978 the practice of wiping tapes had ended.", which is quite a bold claim, and has no reference to the report cited. I have tagged these claims as needing citation, and would suggest that this text is removed completely if it cannot be substantiated.

I have provided a source- an article on the Doctor Who Restoration Team's website.Pawnkingthree 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern (and I hope I'm doing this right): On September 28th, I edited the Missing Episodes section of the main Doctor Who entry to reflect the fact that only the adventures of the first two Doctors (Hartnell and Troughton) were in black and white, a fact confirmed by the next line in the existing text. When Pertwee was to take over the role, the BBC purposely held back his start until January 1970 because that was their big all in colour (re)launch of the network. The only black and white copies of Pertwee's early adventures were sent to markets like Austarila that had not made the conversion to the new format yet. (A similar situation exists with the BBC series "Are You Being Served?", because the only known copy of the pilot episode is a black and white print that was sent overseas since no one can account for the colour edition.) But this morning (September 29th) the original Doctor Who text entry is back. Did I do something wrong? I know my information is right. Lee Houston, Junior 16:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Sincerely, Lee Houston, Junior at prodigy.netLee Houston, Junior 16:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No one's disputing that only Hartnell and Troughton were made in black and white, but that wasn't what was being said. It was that three Doctors-- Hartnell, Troughton and Pertwee-- were affected by the junking of episodes. Pawnkingthree 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be right if the original line in question was by itself, but while it just might be me, in context with the next line in the entry, it's still coming out to me the way I originally comprehended it. Oh well...Lee Houston, Junior 03:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Lee Houston, Junior.

Movie rumours

"There has recently been rumours that there is to be another Doctor Who Movie, where Rose is to be reunited with The Doctor. Although still unknown whether or not Rose is to return, boyband McFly have told many local newspapers that they have a cameo in a new Doctor Who movie playing themselves, meaning there will infact be a movie. Whether or not it'll be shown in Cinemas or just played on the bbc is still unknown." This needs to be cited, though it's probably nothing more than some misaligned rumour - Kwenn 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On reading this I felt really excited, although, I havn't found anything on it, the fact it came from McFly's mouth suggests that its probably true, (because thats not the sort of thing you make up), but thats if it is fact.

I seached google and nothing came up, so maybe if you told us where we could find this information from it would help.--Wiggstar69 21:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've searched as many search engines as I can think of and there's no site of a movie is the near future. Of course this doesn't mean it's not true, but I can't find any further information. (Fat lot of good that did, but hey.)

'We are about to start filming a cameo in the Dr Who Movie. Like in Just My Luck we're not characters, we are just going to be ourselves. We are really looking foward to it.'

I read this here at http://www.mcfly-unofficial.net/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1176127672&archive=&start_from=&ucat=5&

The site does not state where the piece comes from, but I can tell you it comes from a Newspaper of a town they visited on their Up Close and Personal Tour. The Doctor Who part was also mentioned in another interview. 212.139.54.217 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

McFly were asked about this on Entertainment Today and the yanswered with 'thats what we keep being told, but we don't know." Or something allong those lines. However, the interviewer just meant a part in the series. I hear Girls Aloud were to be in an episode but couldn't, maybe McFly ahve taken their place. Sashaxox 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like McFly's role turned out to be in The Sound of Drums, not a movie! If there was another movie, it would likley be a pilot for a US remake, and Billie Piper has been rumoured to be wanted for that, presumably meeting an alternate universe Doctor! Digifiend 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarity needed here

"The airing of The Talons of Weng Chiang resulted in controversy for TVOntario as a result of accusations that the story was racist. Consequently the story was not rebroadcast. CBC began showing the series again in 2005" - the final sentence is unclear. Was Doctor Who as a whole repeated in 2005? Or the new series with Eccleston? Or just Talons of Weng Chiang?. Could any Canadians here please clear this vagueness up? Totnesmartin 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot Points?

I love DW way too much so I notice little things like this:

Their chief role in the great scheme of things, as they frequently remark in their instantly recognisable metallic voices, is to "Exterminate!", even destroying the Time Lords in the often referenced but never shown Time War.

I will have to go re-watch the first 2 new series so I can find you the source but it is mentioned by the Doctor that he had to destroy his own race to destroy the Daleks. The Daleks do not, have not and (presumably) never will have now the power to destory Gallifrey - if you happen to be Richard T Davis then I apologise and bow to the master (sorry bad pun) but if you aren't a writer please don't make the plot up as you go along - that's Richards job. To solve all that is needed is a quick edit but I thought it would be less rude to ask first. 90.152.12.130 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't say he destroyed his own race to destroy the daleks. The daleks destroyed his race and he destroyed them.

Talking to myself it seems but even the wiki Time War page doesn't agree with this bit of the article! ROFL! 90.152.12.130 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's Richard T Davies? ;-) Angmering 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's Russell T Davies Lizzie Harrison 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another BBC partner uses this article's summary...

Take a look at the programme description used for Doctor Who at vuze.com: "...the adventures of a mysterious time-traveller known as "the Doctor", who explores time and space with his companions, solving problems and righting wrongs..." Sound familiar? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Radio Times link

Radio Times currently have all the covers showing Doctor Who [1] so I've put this in Media links - hope this meets with approval. Don't know how long this will last on the RT website (so please monitor) but a useful image resource all the same ..... Zir 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issues

As per the Manual of Style, series names are italicized (Doctor Who) and episode names are double-quoted ("Rose"). However, there are a few ambiguities raised by this:

1) What about story names? In the older half-hour serial format, several episodes make up a story, e.g. 'The Talons of Weng-Chiang' was literally six episodes long, each unnamed here. Since 1996, Doctor Who episodes are named and (usually) uncontinued, each forming it's own story. I suggest that we adopt the convention of formating story names like episodes, thus "The Talons of Weng-Chiang".

2) Are non-canon one-shots considered episodes, stories, or their own series for the purposes of formatting? I suggest the latter, e.g. The Curse of Fatal Death. Dmforcier 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is already a discussion about some of this at the project level. Dmforcier 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection Against Vandalism

I check the "History" listings on this article every day, and it appears to have vandalism posted and undone that often. I submit that this article should be given the protected status that was recently given to The Green Hornet to prevent such actions from being done in the first place. Ted Watson 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I say post a request for protection because it really is just getting ridiculous. The amount of IP vandalism this article gets should surely qualify it for semi-protection. Leeson 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted the request, for full protection, yesterrday, and just found that it had been turned down by Steel359 on the grounds that "vandalism level isn't consistently high." Don't know how he came to that conclusion, and just posted a request on his talk page for an explanation. We'll see what happens next. Ted Watson 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't consistently high for the full protection requested. Unmitigated tabloid fodder ([2] [3] [4]), self-promotion ([5]), inappropriate and disruptive content ([6]), opinion ([7]) and various other disruptions from the majority of IP edits, yes. However, if one looks at the protection policy, this is not in need of full protection. The most that could logically be asked for is semi-protection, and even then it possibly wouldn't be taken as seriously now that a request for protection has been declined. Leeson 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Steel linked in the protection policy page as well, and it doesn't---or didn't at the time I clicked his link to check it out; as I've said so to him, he might have had it revised---contradict the request at all. However, he himself, and somebody signed WjB who inserted him/herself into the discussion, explained that the very fact that "we" are having no trouble keeping up with the garbage means that even semi-protection is not deserved, and I've conceded that point. As of today, the request itself is no longer under debate at all. Ted Watson 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking names

Simple question, not-so-simple answer (I suspect). When linking names such as the Doctor or the Master, which should we link: "the Doctor" or "the Doctor"? The former looks incorrect, and would only make sense (IMHO) if we were using "The Doctor" (capitalized) in all situations. This sprang up over an edit I made at the Utopia article, but it is probably better to discuss it here for a wider audience. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Try the project page. I have no preference. --Jamdav86 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement?

It says at the bottom of the first section of the page that Matha Jones is definitly coming back for the 4th Series, as far as I knew this wasn't confirmed, am I wrong? --Wiggstar69 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are wrong-- certainly the source quoted doesn't mention her. I've removed it until someone can come up with a source for this. Pawnkingthree 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC3 news (just on after a Dr Who repeat about 10 minutes ago) said that Freema is taking a break to let another companion take over, but the way it sounded was that she wouldn't be in a few episodes of the 4th series...not that she wouldn't be in it at all. I don't know if there's a stream of the news anywhere or not, could someone find it if it's there? SmUX 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

confirmed DWM 385 says 'appearing in 5 episodes, freema ageyman'--Christian07TARDIS 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

General Information links

I corrected the spelling in one of the four links newly added to the General Information section:

Doctor Who Online
- Doctor Who Online reference
TARDIS Online
- TARDIS Online - Doctor Who History

However, I notice that the page source contains the comment "additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted". I have not removed these links but am starting the discussion on behalf of the anonymous editor who put them in. The initial suggestion is: these links should be removed. Would anyone care to speak up for them? Ros0709 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the links as that appears to be the page policy, and no-one has defended them. Ros0709 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek episode count--Revert?

At 19:16 19 June, I changed the stated number of total Star Trek episodes from 726 to 718, as per the counts found on the Internet Movie Database. At 22:20, "Ck" reverted with the explanatory note, "many long discussions on talks of here and star trek." As I merely made an already given number more accurate, and this person merely restored the earlier number, I see no relevance of the comment to the reversion of my edit. There is no comparison of the relative merits of the two shows or anything whatsoever like that here, which is the only kind of meaning I can make out of Ck's statement. I provided the numbers on a series-by-series breakdown, in chronological order---there was, of course, no room to make that explicitly clear, but what else could anyone think those numbers were, given the specified context?---which makes challenging them in and of themselves difficult, but, again, that was not the indicated reason (BTW, subsequent consideration has rendered my original suggestion that the longer number here counted two-hour special episodes as two-parters/two episodes, as they have been shown in the respective rerun packages, while the IMDb counted them as one each, not workable as I can remember SEVEN such specials for certain {I can individually identify each and every one of them, if you insist}, which would make a difference of fourteen rather than the actual eight in the counts). I request a clear justification for the reversion. Thank you. Ted Watson 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - yeah - sorry about inaccurate edit summary. Previous discussions in sections such as Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6#Overtaking Star Trek and Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6#Longest-running, revisited have reached a consensus about the comparative lengths of the two shows. The list of Star Trek episodes on the Star Trek page (in the infobox) sums to 726, as discussed at (at least) Talk:Star Trek#Number of episodes and Talk:Star Trek/Archive1#TV shows. Please discuss further on the Star Trek talk page. Sorry if the edit summary was a bit brief - but I hope this explanation is sufficient. Oh, and it's Lostsword :) ck lostsword • T • C 21:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, my most humble apologies for messing up your name. This is all quite "sufficient," except that I'll have to see what I can do about absolute confirmation of the overall Trek episode count. But don't misunderstand that as, yes, I do indeed now see where you're coming from. Ted Watson 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you want me to go back in and check two-hour specials considered to be two episodes (which would be fair enough and is definitely how they count there) and adjust the number accordingly, Trek 's total is 725 episodes according to startrek.com, run by Paramount itself (oddly enough, IMDb's Enterprise count of 92 is fully five episodes short, and Next Gen 's 176 is two short, while DS9 and Voyager match exactly; I know if I try to change those first two, they won't do it because they are all but ignoring a series' overall page in favor of the individual episodes' pages). I say this because I checked those Talk page links you posted, and there was no discussion of just what the number per se should be (other than a very brief debate of whether the 22 cartoon shows should be included, and canon or not, quality or not, they are official TV episodes with real Trek actors and writers involved), and that is the issue between us. Ted Watson 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we even need this section anyway? I don't see what getting bogged down in a debate over which show was "longer" (ie number of episodes vs length of episodes) actually brings to the article. Pawnkingthree 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respects to Pawnkingthree, all we're trying to do is get the Trek episode count correct, differences in total amount of material produced not being involved. I have been to startrek.com again, and now have numbers as definitive as possible. Count two hour specials rerun as two-parters as two episodes each---725. Count them as one episode each---715. The only way to come up with a different number is to count the three occasions that the US network, UPN, ran two unrelated episodes of Enterprise back to back as if they were two-hour specials, one episode each (which I feel is wrong as these are pairs of separate episodes), and then the number is 712. Can't get anything else without being inconsistent---which I must admit that the website in question was, as you had to click on the Enterprise debut episode and go in for explicit details to find that it was a two-hour apecial, which I happened to remember from watching the original telecast. It's not that way for the other two-hour specials, for which you'll find two entries each, "Part I" and "Part II." Anyway, that's it: 725, 715, or inadvisably, 712. Wait, I just remembered a way to get 726. One week after Next Generation 's finale, there was a documentary that did turn up in the syndicated rerun package, at least initially; don't know if it's still there are not, but it was, and that would give a count of 726. Have to admit that I don't like including it, though. Ted Watson 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

This section really need to be cleaned up. Wikipedia isn't a links repository. I did do a mass deletion. Please look at them before re-adding them, they don't add to the article. GreenJoe 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Outpost Gallifrey is the largest Doctor Who site out there. Alientraveller 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss before doing mass deletion and please don't swear in edit summaries.AlanD 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't swear. I probably mis-spelled the word assess. WP:AGF. Most of those links don't need to be there, so I'm certainly happy to discuss it. GreenJoe 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are really good though, so it'd be better to absorb them as citations rather than delete them. Alientraveller 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Radio Times (BBC), the British Film Institute and Outpost Gallifrey should stay as links, given that they are notable. I can't speak for the others, but please don't take that as a comment on their suitability. Is there any way to identify if they are used as sources in the article? --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are used a a source, they should be as an in-line citation. How is Outpost Gallifrey notable? I saw nothing special when I visited that site. GreenJoe 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Like he said, iut's the largest Who site out there, and is referenced in most of the Doctor Who magazines and stuff. Radio times is definitely relevant, as is doctor who cuttings. The general information ones probably can go (apart from OG). Production ones are useful, and reference guide might be. mattbuck 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey has also been referred to in the popular media many times (have you read the article about the site on Wikipedia? It's the only DW fan site with its own page.) Plus, Steven Moffat recently admitted that an injoke in his episode "Blink" was aimed at their users. We know the production team (including RTD) and even the actors like David Tennant read it; OG deserves to be there simply because it's the only fan website that's actually had an impact ON the show.--217.36.21.82 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why a simple statement about what OG actually is has been removed? Yet other websites have descriptive text attached to them. I think it's Good Faith to leave SOME sort of descriptor if you're going to include it (which I agree with doing).--217.36.21.82 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Websites mistake

Sorry about adding the websites The Tardis Technical Index and Rassilon,Omega,and that Other Guy.I had`nt visited the other sites at the time.(TARDIS and Regeneration).If I see any more interesting websites I`ll ask about them first before I add them to any Doctor Who sites. Would it be OK to list "Who`s Next An Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to Doctor Who"and if so on which site.It is an episode guidebook to the Classic Series.This is the first time I have discussed anything online.Please be patient because I can`t type very fast. Kathleen.wright5 08:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert

I have reversed some vandalism at the Doctor Who Magazine site. Kathleen.wright5 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

TARDIS acronym--"D" is for "Dimension" singular or "Dimensions" plural

A few days ago, I modified the introductory paragraph to reflect the fact that the "D" in "TARDIS," initially said to stand for "Dimension" singular was soon changed to "Dimensions" plural, along with the note that this was done because the singular made no grammatical/syntactical sense (for the singular, the full phrase should have read, "Time And a Relative Dimension In Space"). Then, Yamla simply reverted me. However, I maintain that since the singular form did not last long, something about the change should be indicated, rather than just flatly saying that the "D" stands for the singular. I asked Yamla on his talk page why he did this, and, along with a response that I found both speculative and anachronistic (in its science; he cited Stephen Hawking's work, while we're talking about the 1960s) and which absolutely ignored the fact that the change was made, he said I should put the question here. Let me repeat, I feel that since the plural soon replaced the singular and has remained the official version since, not acknowledging it at all in the article is indefensible. Ted Watson 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From memory, it stood for "dimension" in the original story of the original show and has also been used at least once that way in the revamped series. As such, its use spans more than forty years. Personally, I prefer "dimensions" but I do not see "dimension" as grammatically incorrect. For the record, though, if other people believe Ted's change should remain, I am more than happy to withdraw my objection. It is clear that he is working in good faith at the very least and it's quite possible that he's simply right on this point. --Yamla 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The fact that "Dimension" singular has indeed been heard in the new version is one of the things that I don't like about it, and, more importantly, indicate that the people in charge aren't as familiar with the property as they should be. Another is the multiple statements that the Doctor is some 900 years old. That age was given by the sixth Doctor, and in the opening minutes of the 1996 TV movie, it is made abundantly clear that the seventh Doctor knows he must regenerate soon, i.e. he has used most of the life expectancy of that particular incarnation, which should be at least a couple of centuries. We don't know how long the eighth lasted, nor how long he had been in his ninth form when Rose (and we) met him in Eccleston's first episode. I'll concede that both of those two could have had quite brief spans, but unless you don't count the McGann film as canon, the Doctor should be well over 1,000 years old anyway. But that's not the topic of this thread. Sorry. Ted Watson 21:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"in the opening minutes of the 1996 TV movie, it is made abundantly clear that the seventh Doctor knows he must regenerate soon, i.e. he has used most of the life expectancy of that particular incarnation" - Well, the way I saw it, this wasn't the seventh Doctor being aware that he was to regenerate soon, it was the eighth Doctor providing a retrospective narrative on the regeneration that had already happened. 86.142.40.98 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't as familiar or prefer the singular version? The 1996 TV Movie also uses the singular and shortly afterwards a ~~semi-humourous~~ [EDIT: actually on recollection it wasn't tongue in cheek for 19/20 and indeed did quash some serious misperceptions - the tongue in cheekness was on the 100,000 BC vs An Unearthly Child debate!] article in Doctor Who Magazine listed "20 misperceptions" about the series, including "Dimensions" as one of them, suggesting there was a brief "it's singular" movement in fandom. (Although it seems the real culprits are the actors delivering it as singular when the scripts say plural - see TARDIS#_note-2.) But where is it documented that the original change was ever an explicit decision made as opposed to Dennis Spooner & Donald Tosh (who could at least claim ignorance on his first episode) being unfamiliar with the property? (Most of the time in the earliest years "the ship" is the most common term used.)

On the ages I'm inclined to agree (although at the time RTD wrote one of the New Adventures the books were wearing the seventh Doctor down and making him aware he was due to regenerate soon so there is at least one alternative explanation in circulation for that TV movie line) But the clearest date that's been contradicted is a very explicit 953 in Time and the Rani (also the Rani's age and an entry code). Timrollpickering 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Although we are well off-topic now, I have to admit to getting my own name wrong in a job interview once and I'm much younger than 950. Also, I have yet to see any confirmation that the t.v. movie is canon, though this is entirely possible. --Yamla 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Who defines canon though? There have never been "grand edicts" made by "the BBC" (all too often confused with "individual employees/bits of the BBC") on this or so the "officialness" of so many other aspects of the series that fans argue over. But signs that imply it is regarded as so include the BBC's own published books incorporating the TV movie as part of their continuity, ditto the licenced Virgin books, DWM comic strips and Big Finish audios (all within the legal terms of their licence), merchandise from 1996 onwards using the TV movie logo and, tellingly, explicit statements by Russell T. Davies that as far as the new series is concerned the TV movie is a part of the canon and McGann is shown alongside other past Doctors in John Smith's scribblings in Human Nature (and RTD's potted history of the Time War in one of the annuals includes the "act of Master restitution" from the TVM as part of it, alongside events from the original series). So in the absence of anyone making George Lucas style pronouncements on what is canon, I think the TV movice has as much a claim as the rest. Timrollpickering 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WOW! I thought when I apologized for getting off topic, that would be the end of the Doctor's age question, but it seems several of you feel it's a legitimate point. I'm not sure what is meant by "the 'act of Master restitution' from the TVM...," but it brings to mind another problem I had with that film. Why did the Time Lords want the Master's body brought to Gallifrey, when it wasn't even HIS body, or a Gallifreyan one at all? It was, of course, that of Tremas of Traken. I understand that this has led some to speculate that for the Master, this took place between The Deadly Assassin and The Keeper of Traken. Ted Watson 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit on this at Time War (Doctor Who)#Doctor Who Annual 2006. It seems this was an attempt at a peace treaty. From recollection the New Adventure Lungbarrow ends on a similar premise (althought the novelisation of the TV Movie is different and has the Doctor sneaking onto Skaro to rescue the remains, I forget why). I think the early BBC Books are also clear it was the Ainley Master who went to his death (which contradicts his regeneration in the New Adventures - maybe a later book sorted this out). Timrollpickering 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a useful link, right from the horse's mouth as it were :-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/tardiscam/intro.shtml clearly says "And TARDIS means?...TARDIS, of course, stands for Time And Relative Dimensions In Space. Or Time and Relative Dimension in Space, if you're a purist." So both are true, and neither are false. OP is right in that the new version is grammatically correct, but the argument that the original name is what should be used is probably the strongest here and I agree with the purist aspect here personally. SmUX 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I should have mentioned earlier that I saw where the "s" had been added in parentheses in the article's intro and that this was good enough for me. Thanks to whoever. Ted Watson 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --Jamdav86 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing Doctor

There was an earlier film 'Doctor Who and the Daleks' (Or maybe two?) where Peter Cushing played the Doctor and Roy Castle was one of his companions made in 1965 . The film wasn't very good (but no worse than the McGann film) but it should get a mention here somewhere. So really the current Doctor should be the 11th.(But this will involve a lot of editing for somebody!) Film is [8] SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 10:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There's already a paragraph about the films at Doctor Who#Spin-offs. --Kwekubo 10:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Peter Cushing Doctor is not considered cannon though because this doctor is human and not a Time Lord. --Yuri Elite 13:27, 4th July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there are indeed two such films, and the main reason that these aren't considered canon and establishing another regeneration of the Doctor is the fact that they are direct remakes of the TV show's first two Dalek serials, the first being especially faithful, after the opening few minutes' very loose remake of An Unearthly Child anyway (you are right, Yuri Elite, he's human here, although his nature/race/whatever wasn't clear on TV at the time these were produced, and he is also called "Dr. Who," at least once by Ian). This makes them redundant. Ted Watson 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay people. I noticed the references after I had added the above contribution. As I say the films were not very good anyway. Cushing made a limp Doctor. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 10:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Cushing Doctor was merely a "movie version" of the Hartnell Doctor, with feature length colour versions of the TV stories "The Daleks" and "The Dalek Invasion of Earth". Since by this time in the history of TV Doctor Who it wasn't known yet that he would be regenerating, the complication of him not being human was removed for the film and he was presented as an inventive grandfather figure of earth origin instead. It is not considered "canon" (more like a parallel-universe version of Hartnell), while the McGann Doctor *is* canon, being the regeneration that followed McCoy. 86.142.40.98 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Paul McGann doctor is not considered cannon any more, and hence the David Tennant doctor is considered the 9th doctor. I'm sure they've said something about him being the 9th doctor on Doctor Who Confidential before. Can anyone confirm this? —gorgan_almighty 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's totally at odds with everything Russell T. Davies has said on this and the BBC treating the TV Movie the same as all other adventures when it comes to DVD releases, books, websites etc... Also in Human Nature McGann's face was one of several past Doctors drawn by Smith. Short of the Doctor turning to the screen and saying "By the way fans, my adventure in San Fransisco at the end of 1999 did happen," I think it's pretty clear that McGann is considered canon. Timrollpickering 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul McGann's face was among those of the previous doctors in Tennant's Doctor's diary in the Family of Blood/Human Nature two-parter, so he's definitely canon. Davhorn 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well apparently I was wrong then. No harm done. —gorgan_almighty 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers for overseas readers

I live in Australia and I love watching Doctor Who on ABC, but there are too many spoilers in the articles. Is it possible to remove them? --Pezzar 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for you not to read them?Mmm commentaries 00:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia contains spoilers. When reading articles about Doctor Who episodes or characters, it is only to be expected that plot details will be made explicit; editing information out for the benefit of those who have not seen certain episodes would impair Wikipedia's ability to properly discuss the show. --Kwekubo 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes list

This list was getting very long so i've made it a scroll down list to use up less space.--Wiggstar69 09:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Just wondering why the article has been semi-protected as there doesn't seem to have been a huge amount of vandalism relatively speaking. I'm not wanting to start an argument (otherwise I'd have reverted) I was just wondering why, that was all.AlanD 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We had six quite similar incidents of vandalism from three IPs over the course of 12 hours (plus one to the talk page); that's a little more concerted than usual for this article. As such, I requested protection; whichever admin dealt with the case must have agreed it was warranted. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

2009 hiatus

I'm not suggesting we put this in the article, but I believe the hiatus is due to David Tennant's work in theatre clashing with series five filming. It would have been filmed in mid-late 2008 which is when Tennant takes up the lead role in Hamlet. He's devoted to the show and would probably not want to leave the show. Xdt 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a "hiatus" anyway because there will still be three episodes in 2009. I don't think this section is necessary as it's already mentioned in the introduction. Pawnkingthree 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the article had it as hiatus and I'm just pointing something out. It's original research though, but I just wondered if anyone agreed. Xdt 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

re avalabilise editing

hello,

I would like to make some changes to the doctor who page as there are a few errors for example the sitheen are not a new speicies of alien that is their surname (eg.if an alein was called joe blow would his speicies therefore be called the blows? i dont think so.I very much hope you consider my proposal.

yours sinserly Linx the sontaran Linx the sontaran 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this page currently prevents IPs and new users from editing, due to a recent spate of IP vandalism. ~~However, if you wish to make changes to the page, simply address it on this discussion page, and other editors will consider your suggestions.~~ --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I hadn't had enough coffee when I read your proposal. I have made a change that addresses your concern. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

major changes should be employed

in britan, one does not talk of seasons, one speaks of series. It is my opinion that the wikipedia doctor who entries should reflect that. also how does one diffrentiate between the new and the old doctor whos? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.39.90 (talk) 18:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I think we tend to follow the BBC website in this regard, using "season" for the original series (sometimes called "the classic series") and "series" for the revived series. Personally, I've been using "season" to describe various years of Doctor Who for what must be over two decades, and I've lived in the UK all my life. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep — reliable UK sources have been using "season" for years of Doctor Who since at least the 1980s (with the Doctor Who Programme Guide, published by Target Books). As Mark points out, the BBC's website uses "season" to refer to the 1963–89 show (see here) and "series" to refer to the new one (2005–) (see Mark's link above). So "Season 3" refers to the 1965–66 run of episodes, and "Series 3" refers to the recently completed 2006 run. That's the usage we follow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Martha?

Why is there a picture of Martha in the companion section? What makes her any more deserving of a picture than the dozens of other companions. Just because she's the latest companion does not make her more notable. If any companion should have a picture, I would have thought it would be Rose or Sarah Jane. If nobody disagrees, I'll remove this image from this page. Paul730 02:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, by the logic of 'recentism is importantism', the ten Doctors image should be Tennant only. Recentism, as you've already linked to, is not the goal of Wikipedia. Purge it. Leeson 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've just done that. No individual companion is discussed in any great detail in that section, so it's doubtful that any particular companion need be illustrated, particularly by non-free content. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) The latest characters/actors (Martha, Donna, Kylie, Tennant) are also mentioned significantly in the lead section. I thought leads were only supposed to summarise the article, so is this recentism as well? Paul730 09:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly widespread practice to have news of future broadcasts in the article lead of an ongoing series in order to indicate that there's more to come (likewise, defunct series will indicate when they ended). Though it's possible there's too much detail there at present. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Size and Readability

The article is more than 2.5 times the size of the typical set for an article of readability (32kb). There's a large amount of information that is available on the main pages of various articles and many sections would benefit from conciseness. In many cases, a section is rather sizeable and contains a link to a main article or category. I propose that some of the sections are made more concise or are removed with a link to their main article under See Also. This would decrease the size of the article while still keeping information inclusive. -Leeson —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article "The Castellan" needs a major rewrite

One user, Wolf of Fenric has posted an article, The Castellan, but it is limited to the appearances in Arc of Infinity and The Five Doctors and actor Paul Jerricho. He seems unaware that it is a title not a name, and that it was previously held/played by others in The Deadly Assassin and The Invasion of Time. Somebody with a greater grip on those stories than I ("Invasion" more so than the other) needs to rewrite that article. Just a heads up. Ted Watson 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite Digby Tantrum's attempt to replace this article with a redirect to Arc of Infinity, it remains in place. The intro passage acknowledges the existence of the two Castellans seen in the earlier stories, and specifies their names, but remains focused on the unnamed Castellan of the two later stories. I feel that this is wrong, and that the other two should also be dealt with in detail, but as I haven't seen Invasion of Time in years, that one I can't do a decent job of writing up. I repeat my request that someone with sufficient knowledge of these two stories add sections covering their respective Castellans, as adding one but not the other would look really strange. Ted Watson 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)