Talk:Doctor Who (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


From the article:

Commercials on the Fox network advertising the film used special effects footage from the 1986 story The Trial of a Time Lord, although this footage was not used in the movie. This marked the first time that footage from the original BBC series had been shown on a major American network.

Um, why isn't PBS a "major American network"? And even if it technically isn't, it's not much of a point to make, as PBS programming is just as wide spread as NBC, CBS, etc. 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PBS isn't one network, in the sense that it is a single organized broadcast entity (as with the relationship between a standard network and its affiliates). Indeed, every PBS member station has almost completely different programming! There are at least three such stations available over air in San Francisco alone, and there is almost no cross-over in content amongst them. Fox, on the other hand, is a single broadcast entity with essentially standardized scheduling across all its affiliates. -- 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "commercial network" would make more sense? Type 40 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PBS is a network but its member stations typically carry a fair amount of syndicated programming from sources like American Public Television. This content is technically *not* "on the PBS network" even if it's being sold by an individual PBS member station to substantial numbers of other PBS member stations serving other communities. American Public Television or other syndicated educational programming may appear on some but not all PBS stations and/or appear at different times on different stations. Only the core programming is distributed by the main PBS network. K7L (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2006[edit]

Doctor Who (1996 film)Doctor Who (film) — I wrongly moved it from Doctor Who (1996) to Doctor Who (1996 film) due to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), but I did not realize there was only one Doctor Who movie. However, the convention states that it should be located at Doctor Who (film), which is currently occupied by a redirect page. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Oppose Whilst there may not be another film just called "Doctor Who", there are other Doctor Who films. Best to keep the year in it. (see debates above), or call it "Doctor Who: The TV movie" or something like that. -- Beardo 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, such as it is. The year should be kept, at least. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose; although there are no other films with the plain title Doctor Who, there are two theatrical Doctor Who films from the 1960s, not to mention specials from the television series that might be considered as "films". Furthermore, multi-part serials from the 1963–1989 series were often combined in syndication into movie-length stories (called "Whovies" on some stations); I believe these are still broadcast on some PBS stations in the US. The year should be retained in the article title. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doctor Who Paul McGann 1996 Does anyone know how to get a Region 1 copy of this DVD movie?


Shouldn't a production segment be started focusing on the "pilot"'s development? DrWho42 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See History of Doctor Who. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey, this is looking pretty nice now! All things considered. -- 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for explaining the rejigged TARDIS[edit]

In the story Time and the Rani, the first words of the Seventh Doctor include the phrase "check in the TARDIS for it's (bilennial) refit". It could be argued then that following the Master's attempts to gain the Eye of Harmony, the High Council (when not dealing with the other Gallifrey based stories) decided that as the Doctor was a random agent it would be best to place the Eye of Harmony inside his TARDIS. When the Eye was installed it forced the TARDIS to undergo a architectural reconfiguration. Just my two pennies worth! Harry Hayfield 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Clever, though of course there's no place for clever theories in the actual article. At any rate, Davies has a simpler solution: the inside of the TARDIS can be "skinned", like Winamp -- much as the exterior can hypothetically take any appearance. No need to even be clever!
Oh, and as for the Eye: it's pretty well established by now, at least in the surrounding media, that it's just a dimensional link to the actual Eye, standard to all TARDIS units. Again, simple is good. --Aderack 11:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

Although I know from my own experience in fandom that the issues mentioned in the "Controversy" section are indeed subjects about which Doctor Who fans have argued vigorously ever since 1996, I'm worried that without any citations the section largely amounts to original research. I've got a lot on my plate right now, so if someone feels like taking this on it'd be great. Possible sources might include DWM, Dreamwatch and Starburst from shortly after the TVM aired, the Completely Useless Encyclopedia (which I think references some of these controversies), and the like. I think that David Howe's Television Companion even addresses some of these issues, and some of them may be rebutted in Regeneration by Russell and Segal. Anyway, if someone wants to take a stab at finding sources for that section, it would be a big improvement to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources there and it adds little to knowledge of Doctor Who (as opposed to various aspects of fan culture). I'm moving it here until such time as someone decided what needs to be done with it. Text follows:
With its often dramatic changes or additions to established continuity, the TV movie has caused considerable controversy within Doctor Who fandom, some fans charging that it violates canon in several areas. Although the controversy has dimmed somewhat in the wake of the 2005 series (which goes some lengths to address or resolve some of the conflicts), some Doctor Who fans go so far as to disavow the movie from "official" continuity. Meanwhile, other fans insist that all of these points can be easily explained or interpreted in the context of the series. Some lasting points of contention include:
  • The Doctor's being revealed as being half-human.
  • That the Eye of Harmony hypothetically should be on Gallifrey; not in the TARDIS, as shown here.
  • The fact that only a human retina-print can open the Eye of Harmony on a Gallifreyan vessel
  • That the Doctor and his companion, Grace, enter into a romantic relationship (often seen as a taboo).
  • That the Doctor uses the term "cloaking device" to refer to the TARDIS' chameleon circuit.
  • That the movie's take on the Time Lord regenerative process differs from earlier depictions.
  • That the interior of the TARDIS significantly differs from earlier versions.
The writers of numerous original Doctor Who novels that followed the movie, such as Terrance Dicks and Lance Parkin, have attempted to reconcile these and other points of continuity, with varying degrees of success.
Several rebuttals have been made by other fans, starting with the argument that continuity in the original series was never that strong anyway. Specific rebuttals include:
  • Although the Doctor has stated that he is not from Earth, there is nothing to explicitly contradict a mixed heritage. Indeed, the series contains vague hints that may support the theory, depending on interpretation. In The Evil of the Daleks, the Daleks identify the Doctor as "more than human"; in Planet of the Spiders, when the TARDIS returns the dying Third Doctor to Earth, he states it brought him "home". In addition, the Doctor's family background has never been explored in the series beyond the fact that he travelled for a time with his granddaughter, and an occasional reference to other relatives. Alternatively, as the film claims that a Time Lord can change species upon regeneration [1], some fans speculate that only the Eighth Doctor may be half-human. Another popular theory draws from the time the Seventh Doctor spends masquerading as a human named John Smith in Paul Cornell's 1995 Virgin New Adventures novel Human Nature, speculating that the Doctor's human DNA is left over from that experience. Although the revived television series has thus far avoided the issue, the New Series Adventures novel Only Human (2005) states that the Doctor's DNA is "close" to that of humans.
  • The Eye of Harmony shown in the telemovie was just a power-tap; a dimensional link to the actual Eye of Harmony. This explanation has been used in spin-off media, and referenced in a "beginner's guide" to the show on the official Doctor Who website.
  • The spinoff adventure The Apocalypse Element attepts to explain the Eye of Harmony's response to human eyeprints. In that story, a previous Doctor's human companion keys the Eye of Harmony on Gallifrey to respond only to her own retina print. The story ends with an offhand comment by the Doctor about the possible consequences of such an act.
  • The Doctor had an arguably romantic relationship in The Aztecs, and as he also had a granddaughter, presumably he had sexual relations at some point. In the 2005 series, the Ninth Doctor's (and later the Tenth's) relationship with his companion, Rose Tyler, seemed to verge on actual romance (with Rose ultimately declaring her feelings for the Doctor, though the Doctor is prevented from reciprocating), as did the Fourth Doctor's relationship with the second incarnation of Romana. Furthermore, the 2006 episode School Reunion portrays the Doctor's earlier relationship with Sarah Jane Smith in a nominally romantic light.
  • Different eras of the series use different terminology. In 1965's The Time Meddler the TARDIS' disguising mechanism was called a "camouflage unit". The term "chameleon circuit" was introduced in the Target Books novelisations, then only first used in the series proper in 1981's Logopolis. "Cloaking device" is a common term in late 20th century English and would be instantly understandable where "chameleon circuit" would not be. In the 2005 series episode Boom Town, when Rose refers to the TARDIS's cloaking device, the Doctor clarifies that it is called the chameleon circuit.
  • Furthermore, the Doctor may have misused terms or provided incorrect biographical information while his mind remained partially addled post-regeneration.
  • The concept of regeneration has never been consistent and nothing in the telemovie directly contradicts the television series.
  • The interior of the TARDIS had already changed several times throughout the series, if in more subtle ways. For that matter, the interior depicted in the 2005 series is an even more radical departure (whereas the version seen in the movie somewhat recalls the wood-panelled console room used in the series during 1976-1977). In Doctor Who Magazine, 2005 series producer Russell T. Davies explains that the TARDIS interior can be reconfigured in much the same way as its exterior; he compares the process to a Winamp skin.
The film also rattled cages amongst several people associated with Doctor Who. Former script-editor Terrance Dicks famously said, "It's incoherent crap!"; writers Pip and Jane Baker were particularly critical of the abundance of apparent plot holes, and of how McGann spends most of his screen time "in a daze". Even Sylvester McCoy commented that the script — in particular the regeneration, and the scene where the Master attempts to take the Doctor's lives — robbed the Doctor of his dignity. In a 2005 episode of Doctor Who Confidential, McCoy mused, "I always thought [that] the [Doctor Who] film would probably have done better if they had begun the film with Paul [McGann]; and once the series had got going, I should then have come in to show how it [the regeneration] had happened."
Despite this, the television movie is generally accepted as canonical, as evidenced by the current production team classifying Christopher Eccleston as the Ninth Doctor and by the BBC featuring the Eighth Doctor in a 40th anniversary tribute montage included on a number of DVD releases during 2002-2003.
--Tony Sidaway 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ As implied by the following exchange; GRACE: Why don't you have the ability to transform yourself into another species like that..? DOCTOR: Well, I do, you see, but only when I die."
Has there been any published speculation that the Doctor's "half-human" status may have been the result of the Seventh Doctor using the genetic transformation technology seen in Human Nature in a previous unseen adventure? If Time Lords can change into any species using this technology, why not "half human", perhaps as a means of making the Tardis inaccessible to other Time Lords? Type 40 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In the scene at the Institute of Technological Advancement and Research, the Doctor says, "In the fight for survival, there are no rules." This seems to be telling.
Soon after, he tells a security person, "I'm half human, on my mother's side."
In the "Smith and Jones" episode where the Judoon search through the high-jacked hospital for non-humans, the Tenth Doctor manipulates the criminal, Florence Finnegan, into drinking his blood and thereby hiding from the Judoon in death while at the same time exposing her to them since she now registers his non-human DNA. IF there is human DNA ("blood") in his body, it's not enough to protect him or Finnegan.
Always remember, there's - "Rule Number One: The Doctor Lies".
A complete aside: Eric Roberts made a great Master, in my opinion. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This thread is from 6 12 years ago. Anyway, we should not be assembling hints from different stories to create our own interpretations: that is WP:SYNTH. However, if others have already made such connections, we may report on their conclusions (including their routes to those conclusions where necessary), but always giving the source of those conclusions since it can be so controversial. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doctorwho1996dvd.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Doctorwho1996dvd.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 DoneElipongo (Talk|contribs) 03:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast: "Old Doctor"?[edit]

In the Cast section, why has the Seventh Doctor been referred to as the "Old Doctor" when there have been 7 old Doctors to this point?

Because that's the role as named in the credits. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Space Above and Beyond[edit]

It's been long held that Fox did not choose to produce a Doctor Who series because it chose to do Space Above and Beyond instead. However I just checked Wikipedia's own article on SAAB and discovered that that series actually began in 1995 and its final episode aired only two weeks after the Doctor Who movie was shown. It's possible the Wikipedia dates are wrong; if they are, please revert my edit. If the dates are correct, is it possible the story has been reported wrong and Fox greenlit another SF series? Anyone remember what they had in the fall of 1997 besides X-Files? 23:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the dates for Space: Above and Beyond are correct. I think it's simply a case that someone's put in a rumour that doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny, which wouldn't be the first time. It's certainly unsourced. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unoficially known"[edit]

There is a "fact" fact for the line (Unofficially known as Enemy Within). If the tag is for the fact that fans call it that, just look through the early history pages on Doctor who serials, as it was used then. (see here) If it is the fact that it is unofficial, then look no further than the movie itself, as that title was never used for the movie. StuartDD ( tc ) 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's for "unofficially known... by fans". But we'd need something stronger than a Wikipedia edit history: luckily, there's an immensely useful tertiary source provided here. I shall pop it in. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jelly Babies[edit]

Is this a continuity error? It's unclear where the Doctor possibly could have got any Jelly Babies a newly regenerated body...with stolen clothes...without the TARDIS. 20:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I used to live right next to the hospital which I believe must be portrayed in the story, and there is a British foods shop only four or five blocks away, that sells jelly babies. As for why the fellow in the morgue would have a bag of them in his pocket... well. Serendipity, I suppose. -- (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and at my local Walgreens they actually sell Jelly Babies, sure not the 'official' kind, but Jelly Babies nonetheless. Fangarius (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DoctorWho96.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:DoctorWho96.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More than Human[edit]

The article states that this is a reference to a line cut from "Remembrance of the Daleks" but states "although how the Master would know this is unknown."

In the original ending to "Survival" the Doctor says he's more than human, to the Master. That scene was also cut, but perhaps that's where he heard it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a deleted scene in Remeberence of the Daleks to Davros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Console room[edit]

When discussing the changes the console room had over the show's run and the suggestion that it is a "desktop theme" as the fifth Doctor suggests, remember that in one forth Doctor episode the Doctor is seen leading Leela around the interior of the TARDIS whereupon they come across the "secondary control room" where the Doctor finds a recorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion of a console theme is obviously something the writers didn't have in mind in the 1970s:) In any case, there's no reason why there couldn't be both a "desktop theme" option and a secondary control room as a backup. Type 40 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

chameleon arch[edit]

Has there been any published suggestion that the Doctor was half human through use of the Chameleon Arch? Type 40 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • In terms of anything official such as an on-screen reference, no. But someone has noted in this article that the events of Human Nature open up the possibility. Still doesn't explain the "on my mother's side" bit, although we know the arch can create false histories, too. 23skidoo (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As the article has been updated, in The Forgotten, the Eighth Doctor did claim he deceived The Master with a blank stare and a broken Chameleon Arch. However, nothing else has been published suggesting the device can do this. Fangarius (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In print[edit]

Wasn't a script book released, too? 23skidoo (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro changes[edit]

I think it's worth noting in the lead that the film is a continuation of the original series. Although it is implied in the article that it is, there's nothing really stating it outright in the lede. I'm using Lofficier's book as a source here because it's the one I have. However the book Regeneration which details the making of the telefilm, likely has reference to this if someone with the book wishes to add a chapter-and-verse citation. 23skidoo (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ending[edit]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the film's ending? The went into a "temporal orbit", then they simply went back to a few minutes before midnight. How did that change the imminent destruction of the Earth? (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you recall, The Master had opened The Eye for too long in the TARDIS. The Doctor needed to temporarily send the TARDIS off the planet in order to prevent its destruction. As for going back in time before midnight, the TARDIS allegedly did this as a means for 'reviving' Grace and Chang after The Master had murdered them. Ah, the problems with TimeSpace travel, eh?Fangarius (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The "but the 10th doctor seems to find the experience new" argument doesn't have much merit[edit]

That's because he wasn't the product of a union of a Human mother with a Timelord. It was through regeneration. It was another process. Besides, it is obvious that if half-human means still having two hears and still regenerating, there's no point of even discussing it. It was obviously another case. --Leladax (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NZ and AUS release?[edit]

Both the edited and unedited versions have also been released in countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

Um... is this right? According to the List of Doctor Who DVD releases, the Movie isn't available down-under just as it isn't in the US. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Heavy editing?[edit]

I just watched the movie and wondered a few things: After the regeneration, the Doctor wanders through a devastated section of the hospital, even dodging some water spouting out from a broken pipe in the ceiling. Is there any explanation as to why an otherwise properly functioning hospital should have one floor in ruins? (It shouldn't be a side effect of the regeneration being too powerful or such, because the morgue itself appears fairly unaffected.)

Also, at the end the Doctor advises Chang "not to be around next Christmas". What does he mean by that?

I suspect we have cases of heavy editing at hand which would explain this; does anybody know more details? -- Syzygy (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not heavy editing. What you see is what you're supposed to see. There is no explanation as to why that particular wing is in disrepair (earthquake maybe?). And the line to Chang is an allusion to some future disaster (again, earthquake?). DonQuixote (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It's probably in the script, why there is a destroyed room in the hospital, but it never made it into the dialog. Does anyone understand the bit where a motorcycle cop with no brakes drives down the alley, into the TARDIS and then drives off? (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

He got scared of the inside of the TARDIS so just drove away as fast as he could.

Requested move 2012[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who (1996 film)Doctor Who (film) – I see that this has already been discussed, but the fact of the matter is that even though there are more Doctor Who films, none of them are called Doctor Who. Same with The Muppets, they've had many films, but only one is called The Muppets. Unreal7 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose There have been multiple films and also the near constant talk of a proposed new theatrical feature, which makes the proposed title ambiguous. Also "film" isn't always synonymous with TV movie, which makes just "film" on its own even worse. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple Doctor Who films and film projects, documented in multiple articles -- (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment "Doctor Who (film)" should be retargetted to Doctor Who#Adaptations and other appearances -- (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who (film) already redirects here anyway. 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support As stated, no other Doctor Who film is actually just called "Doctor Who" so it isn't ambiguous, plus Doctor Who (film) already redirects here anyway so no issues there. And if someone does happen upon the page looking for the Cushing Dalek films, there's already a hatnote at the top linking to them. I really don't see the issue. --DocNox (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as the only film that has this title, per WP:PRECISE. I am fine with providing whatever hatnote would be helpful. I don't think this matter is that confusing. EDIT: This may help show what is really out there. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tony Dow[edit]

I would like to know why my insert re Tony Dow was deleted. (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Because as you stated yourself, it was trivia. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Article protection[edit]

I have protected this article for three days due to the edit warring related to the infobox. Please discuss the matter here rather than endless back & forth changes. As far as I can tell the Wrong Version I have protected is the status quo ante. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox cast list again[edit]

The above note by Timrollpickering refers to these edits. A very similar problem has occurred again. Can we at least discuss this without repeated reversion? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the recent change to the infobox, and as someone who doesn't edit/follow a lot of Doctor Who articles, it seemed like a good change. I was surprised, frankly, to see it reverted so quickly. I don't have a DVD of the movie to check for myself, but were all these actors billed prominently, i.e. opening credits or whatever? If the list is a comprehensive cast list, I would say it should be trimmed. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I just lazily reverted to remove the syntax error (master= isn't a valid parameter). DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It is a comprehensive cast list, but in that respect is no different from any of the other 200+ articles about individual Doctor Who stories. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I might say that in that case, it's the other articles that should be changed, not this one. MOS:INFOBOX makes it pretty clear that an infobox should be brief and act as a summary. A minor role that would barely merit mention in prose in a "cast" section definitely does not belong in an infobox which is long enough already. I don't see a good reason for an exception here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the medium-specific infobox ought to take precedence over the fannish Doctor Who story chronology infobox. It should use the standard film one. The prose can make clear in its own way that the film takes place after Survival and series cancellation, and having failed as a pilot, long prior to the series' revival.Zythe (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If we cut down all of them - the TV stories included - to just those people named in the opening credits, there will be one or occasionally two names for each pre-1996 story - the writers. Nobody else - not even the actor who portrayed The Doctor - was given a credit in the opening titles of the TV stories until "Rose" in 2005, which credits five names at the start - Christopher Eccleston, Billie Piper, Russell T Davies, Phil Collinson and Keith Boak. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a black-and-white rule. The point is that it should be notable roles in the episode. Editors are free to use some discretion when choosing which to include, but that doesn't mean we are forced to choose one extreme or the other. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
To give a bit of history about this Dr Who serials/episode articles used to have a "Cast" section in the body of the article. Then about five, or maybe six, years ago a consensus was formed (I have know idea where you would find that though) that all TV shows casts were to be moved into the infobox. Please note: that this did not happen with our film articles. While infoboxes are to be kept brief it is not "fannish" to include every cast member in a given episode. It is pretty much standard practice when there are individual articles for each episode of a given series. My preference is that we list a few names in the infobox and restore a full cast section in the article but I know that I am in the minority in this and it would require a larger conversation than just this thread. As things currently stand it does no harm for us to be thorough and have a full cast list in the infobox per WP:IAR. MarnetteD | Talk 01:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is clear: we should follow general Wikipedia practice and not do something different for Doctor Who stories. We need to stick to MOS:INFOBOX. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

which "general Wikipedia practice"? - the MOS pages you linked says "Consistency between infoboxes" - having the guest cast in the infobox would mean "Consistency" with all other Doctor Who articles. (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
As I stated Dr Who infoboxes are not the only ones to list the entire cast. BTW a thorough reading of the other posts at this thread show a local consensus for keeping the infobox as is. I am afraid that I am notiding a WP:IDONTLIKETHAT situation arising MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

'The Doctor' and 'The Old Doctor'[edit]

As we are supposed to keep a 'real-world perspective' on these things, I propose that we change the Cast section to:

Problem with these is that you violate WP:EGG. We also do not need to clutter up the infobox with this kind of thing. These cast listings are unique to the TV film and they can be mentioned in the body of the article - perhaps "cast notes" section or they could be footnoted from the infobox listing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:EGG is not a major concern here; the presence or removal of the hidden "Regeneration" link does not materially change the proposal. As for the rest, I don't see why a "credited as" note is a problem. I think the cast list is clean enough that a 4-word or so parenthetical note after two roles wouldn't look out of place. Isn't the Cast section exactly where they belong? Why does the fact that they're unique to the film matter (this is an article on the film, after all)? --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
We always work to avoid infobox bloat and these add to that. The uniqueness "matters" because this will be the only infobox with notes like this in it. They fit better in the body of the article due to the fact that you can add a description of the reasons why these unique cast listings occurred. You cannot assume (and doing so is very "In Universe") that readers not familiar with the show will have any understanding of why these cast listings are different. Remember infoboxes are meant to give thumbnail mentions of items that are to be fleshed out with details in the body of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh and WP:EGG is a major concern when the word "Old" links to "regeneration" as the two terms have nothing to do with each other. Even someone like myself, who has a great deal of "In Universe" knowledge of the show, finds that linking hard to justify. MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
And yet one more thing. The "The Eighth Doctor, credited as The Doctor" could be applied to every serial/episode infobox (and yes I know we would have "Doctor Who" in place of "The Doctor" sometimes) and there is no need to go down that road. MarnetteD | Talk 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody wants to change the infobox. The original proposal was for the cast section. What I meant by saying that EGG didn't matter was that it wasn't the crux of the proposal (which wasn't mine, btw), just incidental to it. I was more concerned that citing EGG was "piling on" a bit. Point taken about "Eighth Doctor" and "The Doctor" in every other episode, though. I hadn't considered that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks for the reply. I understand your ideas but we may be thinking of different things. When the OP posted "cast section" I felt they were referring to the cast list in the infobox (especially since that is where they have been making their edits) and all my posts have proceeded from the this thought. If they mean adding it to the "cast notes" section then that is actually in line with my first post. Again, that would be a good way to proceed as some explanation could be added to why this film used the term "Old Doctor" and we could avoid any EGG problems. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I meant in the cast section. jSmith11 (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I created the cast section because it is a film and like the Day of the Doctor was some shown in some US/Canadian cinemas. The credits credit the Doctors and Old and The Doctor because the film was to make Americans understand it. The BBC website and Episode Guide uses the original credits however Sylvester McCoy is the Seventh Doctor and Paul McGann is the Eighth Doctor. They even mention seventh and eighth lives in the film. We should not use Old and The Doctor as it would confuse people. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuity with "Heaven Sent"[edit]

Should the recent revelation of the doctor's hybrid status (Heaven Sent) be mentioned in this movie's continuity section? Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. First this would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH interpretation of what was shown. Remember that different viewers will have different interpretations of what was seen and said. Even if everyone could agree it is too early to say that this is the final word on things. Moffat (and Davies before him), more than once, wrote a story arc that seemed to be going in one direction only to have it change in the next episode or season. Indeed somethings things percolated for a year or more - the preview for "Hell Bent" included characters from "The Day of the Doctor" and I thought I saw someone from "The Last Day". Remember article entries need WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. MarnetteD|Talk 20:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The continuity section is a bit out of control as it is and could do with a bit of weeding. I just removed the "steampunk theme" and Jules Verne bit, as both comparisons require a source (two, actually), particularly as they are being mentioned in the same breath: Verne is a 19th century science fiction author (one of many), whereas 'steampunk' is a modern subgenre which sets sci-fi stories in (usually) 19th century settings, hardly the same thing. Even with some kind of source, you'd need it say that was the effect they were going for, and it would be an outside reference (nothing to do with continuity) or else part of the critical reception if some critic made that connection. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Page rename request for April 5, 2016[edit]

Rename the page to Doctor Who (Episode) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 22:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't even engage here - any argument for this change cannot validate it against reasons not too. Also this IP has been making very disruptive and illogical edits. Randomly view several and all appear to be vandalism. Dresken (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I've reverted a lot myself in the last few weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)