Talk:List of Doctor Who serials by setting
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Doctor Who serials by setting article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|WikiProject Doctor Who||(Rated List-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Television / Episode coverage||(Rated List-class)|
|List of Doctor Who serials by setting is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.|
|This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
- 1 The End of Time (Ood scene)
- 2 Would this suffice as a reliable source for everything on the list?
- 3 Lacking in Torchwood
- 4 Negation of the "Aliens of London" Jump?
- 5 "Martha's" blog??
- 6 Under Negated Timelines
- 7 Post-AfD cleanup
- 8 why 2006 and 2006-A
- 9 The Dalek's Invasion of Earth
- 10 100,000 BC
- 11 2,000 AD
- 12 2007-'08-'09
- 13 UNIT
- 14 Tables
- 15 Suitable for Wikipedia?
- 16 Proposed move
The End of Time (Ood scene)
In the End of Time part 1, Ood Sigma states that it took 100 years for the Ood to advance their civilization as they did, dating the Ood scene in that episode 100 years after Planet of the Ood. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Would this suffice as a reliable source for everything on the list?
From the Guardian Doctor Who: Every single journey through time detailed by Information is Beautiful. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well looking it at, firstly they say " In some episodes, the time or location were ambiguous. We've tried to make educated guesses". examining the spreadsheet the source for the information is mostly wikis, and in at least one case wikipedia. So, in my opinion no. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. What about Lance Parkin's massive Ahistory for a secondary source if it'll get rid of this tendentious cleanup tag? Surely one of the Who Wikiproject members has got it on their shelves? Obviously some of his choices ARE choices, but he footnotes everything to within an inch of its life as to why he made them, so it could still serve as a source for the points where this article is more agnostic than he is. Bizarrely, though, it doesn't seem to have been used anywhere in this article so far. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Lacking in Torchwood
So I've noticed that most episodes of Torchwood are missing from this list. Though it's assumed that most of Season 1 took place 2007-May 2008, since the end of "End of Days" is the same time as the beginning of Utopia/The Sound of Drums. Dizzydark (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which I've now done.
- After only the first two episodes of Miracle Day and the intros & 1st webisode of Web of Lies, I've got those series in the "unspecified present-day" section for the time being (except for the "missing day" portions of Web of Lies). MileyDavidA (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Miracle Day notes
- Although I'm not going to edit the main article due to my calculations being estimates (and based on one interview with a Torchwood star), I will add my Miracle Day notes here regarding it's chronological placement:
- CoE day one (either Sept 1, 8, 16, 22, 29 in 2009) = Gwen is three weeks pregnant.
- CoE day five (either Mar 5, 12, 19 26 or April 2 in 2010)- "six month later" scene = Gween is six months, three weeks and five days pregnant (based on time since day one)
- The above dates imply conception on approximately August 11, 18, 25 or September 1 or 8 in 2009
- Assuming birth at precisely nine months, Anwen was born on May 11, 18, 25 or June 1 and 8 in 2010
- A recent TV Guide interview with Eve Myles states that Anwen is six months when Miracle Day starts, thus implying Miracle Day is either November 11, 18, or 25 or December 2 or 9 in 2010. Lenonn (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Negation of the "Aliens of London" Jump?
The UNIT dating controversy having been essentially put to rest according to the serials temporal settings shown on BBC's website, along with the dialogue in several episodes of The Sarah Jane Adventures, we now have a new, similar dating paradox to resolve.
The revived series' premier episode, "Rose" states in dialogue - and in accompanying material on the BBC's tie-in website, whoisdoctorwho.co.uk - that the events of that episode occurred on 5–6 March 2005. When the Tenth Doctor visits Rose Tyler at the end of "The end of Time", she states the date as 1 January 2005, and he tells her that she will have a very interesting year, thus further confirming that "Rose" was not set prior to 2005.
The fourth episode of the revised series, "Aliens of London", jumped the story ahead by a year to 2006, as clearly stated in dialogue. The episode tells the story of what happens to the friends and family of companions who disappear with the Doctor. The episode also introduces the Hon. Harriet Jones, MP, who takes charge in the absence of the Prime Minister whom the Slitheen had already killed.
"Boom Town" features the Slitheen survivors of "Aliens of London" & "World War Three" and is said in dialogue to be set six months after the events of those episodes. "The Parting of the Ways" likewise occurs after those two episodes, as Mickey and Jackie understand the nature of Rose's travels with the Doctor, and her one-year disappearance and return are in the relative past. Finally, 2005's Christmas episode, "The Christmas Invasion", shows Harriet Jones has ascended to Prime Minister, and the events of "Aliens of London" & "World War Three" are discussed as having occurred in the past.
Jump Ahead Aparently Abandoned
The "present day" scenes in 2006 series make no mention of the year being ahead of broadcast by a year. Martha Jones' blog for the 2007 series shows the "present" to be in 2007, and gives precise dates for several episodes ("Smith & Jones" is set 31 March 2007, for example.) Both her blog and the show's own dialogue place 2007's "Blink's present-day in 2007. Likewise, The Sarah Jane Adventures’s "present-day" is not indicated to be ahead by a year, yet major events already depicted in Doctor Who are refered to as having happened.
Despite not mentioning the date, Rose, Jackie and Mickey all end up in the parallel universe in "Army of Ghosts" & "Doomsday", thereby necesarilly placing them in-sequence with the preceeding "present day" episodes' narratives. These two episodes' "Battle of Canary Warf" is frequently cited as a past event in "Smith and Jones", "Utopia", and throughout the first two series of Torchwood.
Torchwood and the BBC's tie-in websites for the series frequently state the year in either explicitly in documents, or by implication from the number of years since a prior event for which a year is known (historical fact or dated event in the stories). This has been further and explicitly confirmed now, with ep. 1 of Torchwood: Miracle Day, which states in dialogue that Gwen joined Torchwood in October 2006 - not in 2007 which would have to be the case unless the "Aliens of London" jump was ignored.
The Eleventh Doctor series' side-step the issue. The modern-day events of the Ninth and Tenth Doctors are only mentioned in the context of Amy not remembering them because of the crack in time. They have not been mentioned since the Doctor sealed the crack and rebooted the universe.
I suggest the insertion of a line in the chronology, after "Aliens of London" & "World War III" (or possibly after "Boom Town", that reads something such as: The jump forward in time shown in Aliens of London was tacitly abandoned soon thereafter, re-aligning subsequent episodes' "present-day" settings to be roughly concurrent with their broadcasts."
The present-day settings can then be aligned to conform to the information stated in-dialogue and on the BBC's official websites, thus ignoring the "Aliens of London" jump forward just as the BBC and the shows' writers have done.
- You'll need sources. Otherwise its just OR. Better to put down what the sources have given as the dates, the is no Doctor Who canon after all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's the thing. There are scads of sources on the Torchwood site, Martha Jones' blog, implied dates in Torchwood (for example, how many years since the Blitz in "Ghost Machine") and the setting of "Everything Changes" specifically stated as being in October 2006 in dialogue in episode 1 of Torchwood: Miracle Day.
- The last time that the shows' setting was still shown to be a year ahead was "Christmas Invasion"'s tie-in website for the Mars probe.
- I would amend my proposal slightly. It might be more appropriate to put the break after "Army of Ghosts" & "Doomsday", since they ended Rose's regular tenure. Or not, since "Cyberwoman" is also set at the same time, and Rose's second season doesn't clarify whether they are still a year ahead or not.
Instead of a break, as described above, how about this:
|"School Reunion"||early 2006/2007 realignment year||10th||2006|
|"Love & Monsters"|
|"Army of Ghosts" & "Doomsday"||spring 2006/2007 realignment year, at least two months after "Love & Monsters"|
|"Cyberwoman" (Canary Warf flashbacks)||TW|
It would still have the citational footnotes; I simply omitted those for the illustration. A note explaining the realignment year could be written above the table. MileyDavidA (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at pg 206 of The Writer's Tale where Russell T. Davies explicitly states that Partners in Crime takes place in 2009: "But then I realised that this is actually 2009, in story terms, since The Runaway Bride was set at Christmas 2007, and this episode takes a little over a year later."--188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A number of 'references' have been added that refer to 'Martha's' blog on MySpace. Is that page anything other than fan fiction?? It does not seem to qualify as a usable source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
After some further investigation, 'Martha's' blog was created by PR agency Taylor Herring Ltd. There is no indication that content of the blog should be regarded as canonical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Taylor Herring was working on contract for the BBC. Its timeline (and the 2006/2007 realignment) dovetails with that shown on the Torchwood site that always resided on BBC.co.UK MileyDavidA (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- The canonicity of Doctor Who spin-off media is generally considered to be in question. Why would a fictional blog be considered a more reliable source than other spin-off media?? Unless it is specifically cited by the BBC as canonical, there would seem to be no more reason to use the MySpace page than there would for any other non-canonical Doctor Who media. What about Attack of the Graske? What about Doctor Who at the Proms? What about all the novels?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Repeat after me: "there is no canon". There's just a pile of stuff put out under licence from the BBC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I feel no need to 'repeat' anything for you. Doctor Who-related articles on Wikipedia frequently say that the canonicity of spin-off media is undetermined. In any case, this article doesn't include items from the various novels and various other related works. The supposed 'benchmark' for inclusion or reliability is therefore unclear.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Repeat after me: "there is no canon". There's just a pile of stuff put out under licence from the BBC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- There is clearly an inherent difference between spin-off media (i.e., books, audio books, the direct-to-video stories like Downtime, the comic strip, inter alia) that were produced by third parties acting on their own, under license from the BBC, versus the material produced under contract **for** the BBC & the Beeb's American partners. The BBC created several websites to enhance the experience, draw in viewers, tease the fans, and, to thus increase viewership. These have included the Torchwood site with their emails, files, reports, photos, and so-forth; Martha's blog; the material on the Sarah Jane Adventures site, the site that tracks the Doctor conspiracy that Rose is shown in "Rose" and which Mickey takes over after that episode; the UNIT site; the Saxon campaign site; the Torchwood House site that tied into "Tooth & Claw" (apart from the implications of that site's photo of Mr Cribbins, given that its use preceded "Voyage of the Damned", Wilf's name isn't shown, and the wedding has never been referenced in series); the Gweneviere Mars Mission site for "Christmas Invasion"; as well as the three animated web serials; and BBC Radio 4's Torchwood episodes. MileyDavidA (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that websites created FOR the BBC under CONTRACT are as good a source as say many parts of a Doctor Who episode itself, much of which from script writers, through actors and special effects to post production are done FOR the BBC under CONTRACT, hell I bet even the camera operators work under contract (i.e. not employed by the BBC). "For the BBC under contract" is very different to "Produced under licence from the BBC". The former is canon, it must be unless we throw out all and any idea of canonicity, whilst the later may or may not be canon. Jasonfward (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Under Negated Timelines
The timeline of series 6, episode 9, The Girl Who Waited. While I will admit that the timeline was short-lived (no pun intended), story wise, it was effectively circumvented by locking on to the younger Amy's timestream, and then locking out the older Amy from the TARDIS. Joshua Torelli (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
why 2006 and 2006-A
The Dalek's Invasion of Earth
The year 2164 in inaccurate for The Dalek's Invasion of Earth as the calendar found was assumed to have been in the factory for some years. The best dating possible would be post-2164. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that several episodes dated in 2007, 2008, and 2009 within the in-show chronology are out of order. Could someone who knows better than I how to work with tables please place them in the proper order? (Thank you in advance.) -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This article's UNIT dating is pure POV. Perhaps something similar to how Parkin and Pearson portray the UNIT stories in AHistory would be far more suitable? There is a separate, undated, section for all the UNIT and related stories, which only tells how much time has passed between each story, and doesn't try and force them into some idiot's personal preference? Essentially, Web of Fear is UNIT Year -4(not minus 3!). The Invasion is UNIT Year 1 etc. As the article stands now, it is POV, and a large part OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I know this response is very late, but all I can tell you (I don't really know how to work them either) is to visit WP:HELP and someone there can help. —Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 20:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Suitable for Wikipedia?
This is an impressive article and a valuable resource for the Dr Who fan, but I am concerned as to how it fits on Wikipedia rather than, say, the Tardis Data Core wikia. Wikipedia's focus on a real-world perspective rather than an in-universe one and on reliable secondary sources seems at odds with this article's approach. WP:NOT would suggest this article is unlikely to prosper here. Can other editors suggest why this article is warranted on Wikipedia, or suggest how to re-shape it to better fit Wikipedia policy? Bondegezou (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this. First, a lot of it is subjective, and can not be properly sourced. next, it's not really relevant as regards real-world coverage of Doctor Who. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been proposed that this article be moved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Proposed move of List of Doctor Who serials by setting. G S Palmer (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)