Talk:List of Doctor Who serials by setting/Archive 2

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

Torchwood Episodes

Combat was aired in 2006, the last two episode were aired on 1st Jan 2007 meaning they have to have different places on the table.--Wiggstar69 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, my mistake. Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 11:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Gridlock Reference

I noticed (and removed temporarily) a reference to the dating of this episode. Does anyone thing we can remove references to episodes where it is stated on the screen the date?

For example, state "All dates are explicitly stated in the episode unless otherwise noted."

The Core-Man 14:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea, as several of the episodes have dates that are not mentioned in the episode. (one example is Logopolis) StuartDD 19:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2008 dating (Current series)

The current revision places Utopia before Smith and Jones and The Lazarus Experiment. Surely Utpoia would take place after these episodes. I don't think that the Doctor would go back on Martha's timeline just to pick up some fuel. Also, how does the Utopia clip fit in with End of Days. Jack is seen running to the TARDIS, when he disapears into one at the end of that episode. He could have been taken by another Tardis at the end of that episode and come back sometime between then and Utopia. I think we should delete or move Utopia untill we see the whole episode. StuartDD 11:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Your completly right, I really didn't think, I know that the clip of Utopia avalible on Youtube is very different from the end of day ending, so we'll just have to wait and see.--Wiggstar69 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't enter episodes that haven't aired yet. Clips we see online might not be in the final edit of the show. Let's wait until Saturday night when the show has aired before adding new stories. The Core-Man 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We never see Jack entering the TARDIS in End of Days. While in the hub, he hears the TARDIS materialising and smiles. Cut to Gwen, who is looking for him. In the Utopia clip, Jack is running across Roald Dahl Plas towards the TARDIS. Of course they are supposed to be the same event: down below, in the hub, Jack hears the TARDIS above. What does he do? Runs out of the hub and across the square to where he knows the TARDIS will be. Gwinva 15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Running towards the TARDIS might be another scene later on in the series. This isn't confirmed yet. Also, I don't know how we are going to place the event of Jack getting picked up by The Doctor. I would place the last scene with Jack hearing the TARDIS before the first scene of the Doctor meeting Martha, but we'll all figure it out when it actually occurs on screen. Until then, I just have to be patient. The Core-Man 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's no point getting too carried away speculating all sorts of possibilities. In a few weeks we'll know more. Having said that, the Freema clip does not suggest any complicated timing issues. TARDIS appears in Cardiff for a moment, with the Doctor admitting it's a pitstop, and he's only there for twenty seconds. It's irrelevant what year/time that is. The Doctor probably doesn't care (it's the place he's after). What does it matter if it's a little back in time for Martha? Not being from Cardiff, she's not going to bump into her former self, or change her own history. The rest of the episode is the story (and the timing of that matters); the Cardiff clip is merely a device to get Jack back in, and it need not be complicated. The TARDIS pops into Cardiff; Jack is there. Fine. Do we need more? I'm more interested in how Jack survives clinging to the outside of the TARDIS. How does he breathe in the vortex? Protected by the TARDIS? I'm looking forward to finding out more... Gwinva 07:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bullets can't kill him. Maybe he truly is indestructable! Personally, I'm just glad that Jack is back. The Core-Man 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You can leave these comments on chatrooms, not wikipedia.--Wiggstar69 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lines in Human Nature show that Smith and Jones takes place in 2007 not 2008. The "couple of years ago" in Utopia is probally a continuity error. StuartDD 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the Doctor has a horrible track record of getting years right. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That episode is completely different. The Doctor sets the TARDIS to the wrong year. Also, other hints from this series show it is 2007, including the fact that The Deathly Hallows has not been released yet.

StuartDD 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't explain why Martha is using the phrase "a couple of years ago" to refer to an event that happened in the previous year. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 16:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

www.votesaxon.org.uk

This is a site ran by the bbc suggesting that the new series is set in 2007 although the cannonicity of this is unclear.--Wiggstar69 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

forget that it doesn't belong to the BBC I was wrong.--Wiggstar69 15:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting ahead of ourselves?

Should we wait until an episode airs before we add it's information to the listing? I see Utopia is already on the list and that's not even this weeks upcoming ep! The Core-Man 13:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added that, we've decided that unless there is sources to back up a date not to add it, for example we had to delete Utopia because although jack wen't missing in February 2008 there is not any way of saying this episode definitly happens after the Torchwood finalie.--Wiggstar69 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Wiggstar, I agree completely. Just wanted to touch base first before removing the link. Well, just have to wait for that episode to air! The Core-Man 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the "Trillions" Utopia placement as well. The clip on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross showed the Doctor referenceing several dates where they do not stop. We do not yet know if the TARDIS stops in the trillions. We should wait till the episode before adding it to the chronology.

StuartDD 19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to remove it AGAIN. Someone put it back up there. Please wait until the episode at least airs until adding the story's placement in the chronology. The Core-Man 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New Earth Start?

Should we add New Earth start to the chronology? If we have the brief visits in End of the World (where they don't even leave the TARDIS), then we should have this. StuartDD 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Canon and chronology

Canon is an important concept for in-universe perspective, but Wikipedia isn't a fan site so our articles are (or should be) written from an out-of-universe perspective. The out-of-universe perspective tolerates inconsistencies and errors in timelines because two incompatible works of fiction can obviously co-exist in the real world without causing any problems.

Another consequence of this perspective is that the concept of canon is not a useful factor in compiling lists. The 1960s films may be not considered canon, but they are licensed spin-offs of Doctor Who and they are definitely dated, so there's no problem fitting them into this timeline, which may be filtered to an in-universe perspective by readers who are interested in whatever internal consistency may exist within the Doctor Who universe. Novels and whatnot can also be fitted in for the same reason, irrespective of concerns about canon.

I have therefore restored a note about one of the films, which was removed on stated grounds of "canonicity". --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. The Cushing movies are not part of that universe, so they should not be included. They may be dated, but that is not relevent as to whether something is in the universe or not. As this article is to do with fiction, then it is relevent to consider what is part of that fiction, even when written from an outside perspective. You do not include everything in a list of fictional things just because the two different fictions share the same name. StuartDD 14:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but it's "of the Doctor Who universe" which clearly not encompass the movies.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Martha's own section?

I deleted Martha's own section because I felt it was irellivent whether she is in the episode listed or not, if we did this for Martha we'd have to do it for every companion. Remember the point of the page is to show the date order of the Doctor Who episodes, no other order. If anyone feels like the'd prefer it there please explain why before adding.--Wiggstar69 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there's conflicting evidence to the date of the episode given by both the Doctor and Martha. It's a mini-UNIT dating controversy. Will (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the evidence clearly places it between "Doomsday" and "The Runaway Bride", but you know...~ZytheTalk to me!
I think if there are conflicts between evidence then we should go with the most clear and recent statments. For example in the Utopia clip she uses words to sum up a date rather then actually stating it.
Also Zythe is right it seems to be placed within "Doomsday" and "The Runaway Bride", so I guess we could have a vote, (but as you know voting is evil) but since in the talk we have a 2-1 opinion 'so far' I do hope you keep it as it is and we don't end up in an edit war. Remember the people who write these episodes may make mistakes with timing so we have to go with the clearest information.--Wiggstar69 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
People don't use the phrase "a couple of years back" to refer to something that happened in the year before. Will (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
To me, 'couple' means two, 'several' means three. We should use couple of years as 2 years. The Core-Man 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There is enough evidence on the other side then on yours, from the whole rose going forward a year to every referenced time following that, (enough to let one phrase slide), she may have worded it wrong, also remember she has been in the TARDIS for a long time, enough to make it seem longer ago then it really was. If you like though we could mention this mistake at the end of the page like I have already done under 'conflicting evidence'--Wiggstar69 15:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There's only one piece of evidence for 2007, and that's the Doctor in his study. Likewise, there's only one piece of evidence for 2008, and that's Martha's line in Utopia. Will (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'missing' poster for Captain Jack after the final for Torchwood series one, as well as every peice of Doctor who propaganda put out by the BBC (for example Matha's BBC produced Myspace page) and finally Mr Smith clearly stating '2007' (far more clear then a phrase). It is clear the the team behind Doctor Who are intending it to be set in 2007. If that is not enough conter evidence I know there is more that I have forgotten so people may come forward and add other things I have left of the list.--Wiggstar69 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found that the only way the different sides could fit together would be if Jack went missing in early February 2009, this would mean Utopia was set then as well as then final episodes of Torchwood. But since it was not intended to be taken that way i'd like to keep it as it is.--Wiggstar69 16:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The Myspace blog also puts The Runaway Bride in 2006. Will (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Also from the MySpace blog, dating series 3 to 2008:
"And he took me to Helsinki. To last year's Eurovision contest!" (blog post for Human Nature)
"Saxon shooting down that big alien deathstar thing" (blog post for The Shakespeare Code)
Can't link to them, though, spam filter.Will (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Utopia is set at the same time as End of Days, which is VERY EARLY in 2008. Martha's blog is full of weird stuff, like posting a synopsis of 42 a week early and then removing it after people had read it and commented it. Saxon has control of the army by Christmas 2007. I don't trust the blog in the way I trust say, the Torchwood website, but as we know there have been bits of continuity slips (authors not knowing when the episode is set) across the last 2 years, both in terms of the series and the websites.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the timeline as things go

Story Year Doctor Year Aired
Love & Monsters 2007 10th 2006
Army of Ghosts/Doomsday 2007 10th 2006
Everything Changes to Out of Time Late 2007 TW 2006
Smith and Jones Late 2007 10th 2007
The Lazarus Experiment Day after Smith and Jones 10th 2007
42 Election Day 10th 2007
The Runaway Bride 24 December, 2007 (after Saxon has been elected) 10th 2006
Combat Early 2008 TW 2006
Captain Jack Harkness/End of Days February 2008 TW 2007
Utopia February 2008, a couple years after Boom Town 10th 2007
Invasion of the Bane 10-11 January, 2009 SJA 2007

The evidence stated in the series does not conflict.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He has control of a military, but not specifically the British Army (unless I wasn't paying attention) - in fact, the missing poster could be helpful, there is nothing stopping the episodes and the election being in January (in fact, there have been general elections in January before). Plus, you're totally disregarding the Martha quote in Utopia. struck comment, edit conflicted Will (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think Utopia is set in 2008, because it's later in the series. It all makes sense to me...~ZytheTalk to me! 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the reason that the Doctor said 2007 was because he did take her to Eurovision. I think it's best to keep it dateless for the meanwhile until we get someone confirming the date period: the reason I had it dateless was to, ironically, prevent an edit war. Will (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
A vote may have to take place.--Wiggstar69 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Read my reasoning for having a section on series 3. It is not because series 3 is special, it's because we cannot definitively place these episodes. Because 2007 and 2008 are in the 2000s, it means that the section can be a subsection to the 2000s section (confusing sentence, I know). Just saying "2007" is violating NPOV, as the 2008 date is sourced to the Utopia clip, and you don't delete sourced information. If in the next four episodes another character (Saxon, Tish, Francine) says 2007, then yes, we can definitively date it to 2007. Right now, though, we can't. Will (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Some points:

  1. We can't decide dates by discussion or holding votes.
  2. Some episodes are unequivocally dated within the episode or sometimes the shooting script.
  3. Some episodes cannot be dated using internal references.
  4. Some episodes can be dated by BBC-derived references.
  5. Doctor Who is a work of fiction, not fact, so consistent dating is not to be expected.
  6. Carrying out deductions on dates is original research and is not permitted.

--Tony Sidaway 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, I agree with Tony sideaway above and feel that after the family of blood episode clearly stating 2007 that the page in the current format is correct rather then origional thereos on dates based on phrazes. Can I request that the page is not alterd in the future based on that phrazed, it need not cause any sort of confusion.--Wiggstar69 10:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We should keep the dates for this season as 2008 untill we have definative information to say otherwise. I believe that the stories are before The Runaway Bride for Martha based on the hints in the series (as I have stated many times), but we should only act on definiaive information, not hints. "Carrying out deductions on dates is original research and is not permitted." Carying out deductions is not research if it is based on information given in the stories. e.g. placing the Sarah Jane Adventures pilot in 2009 based on the "year and a half" information given. It is research when it is not based on information in the episode (eg trying to give a month for Doomsday). StuartDD 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the great and clear explaination for Mr. Smiths choise of year as explained somwhere below it seems to be set in 2008 with no conflicts.--Wiggstar69 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Doesn't the Doctor indicate in "The Shakespeare Code" that Harry Potter 7 hasn't been released yet in Martha's time?~ZytheTalk to me! 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he just says that his read it and it was so sad.--Wiggstar69 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Human Nature and Utopia

The Doctor's reference to 2007 was in relationship to where he and Martha were when chased into TARDIS in the flashbacks. They visited 2007, for reasons unspecified. I put all this in the discussion of Human Nature itself. I believe End of Days and Utopia are both in Middle-Late 2008. Torchwood, from Greeks Bearing Gifts onwards was 2008, and a lot of that year passed. The poster stating February is a rare case of me ignoring 'extra data' information [User: Stripey].

Nope, End of Days is one of those precisely confirmed dates. Barring one instance, everything in Torchwood takes place in 2007 except the last three episodes set after Christmas, the last two in particular were confirmed as February 2008. And the context was "and it all took place in the future, the year of our Lord 2007" suggesting multiple adventures at this date. ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

I very much like your reasoning...but I think I'll ultimately do what the thread above mine here says...wait until Francine; Harold; whoever confirms it one way or the other [User: Stripey].

Most of series 3 takes place in 2007 the start of utopia is in 2008 (fitting after Torchwood) and the following episodes after Utopia.

Martha Jones/Human Nature dating controversy

OK, this is really bugging me how simple this is, yet NOBODY here or on any message boards seems to get it. John Smith remarks that "It all took place in the year 2007" when describing the EVENTS in the JOURNAL, NOT the SERIES. If you notice, the Journal made no mention of anything from Series Three or Martha at all (2008), only events from Series 1 and 2 - Daleks, Cybermen, Sltheen Rose, etc (2007) but NO Judoon, Macra, Lazarus, etc (2008) Obviously as the episode states he was conditioned not to recognise Martha, if she was in the Journal it's kind of blow her cover as a maid, so therefore his mention of 2007 is referencing the time he spent with Rose (2007) as the illustrations in his Journal, well, illustrate.

Therefore the quote is correct as his dreams are only about the year 2007. Although he meets Martha in 2008, he does not include that in his journal or dream about it, so does not state "It all took place in 2008" even though the contemporary events do. He is not referring at all to the timeline with Martha and I don't know why anybody keeps insisting he is! Guest 15:00 4 June 2007.

And finally, to back Guest 15:00's comments, Martha's myspace blog says why they mention 2007...they were visiting Eurovision of 2007, which ties that programme in nicely, considering it is linked to this series anyway in what outsiders would call "real life". [User: Stripey].

Watch the clip where he mentions the year 2007 again. At the start, when he first sees martha, he says that his dreams included martha as his companion (this time you were there ... as my "companion"), so he must have drempt about the new series. He goes on to say that it "all took place in ... 2007". Now watch Family of blood. Matron reads to the end of the (for the first time) and notices that he has written that if the family get a timelord they will live forever - so he must have written abnout the start of the human nature in the journal. Hence this shows that he believes the adventures are in 2007. Matron saying that "she had never read to the end before" also opens up the posibility that he had written about the series, but she didn't go that far in the pictures with the daleks etc (i.e. when it was shown on screen).

The most likely explanation is that the writters had mixed ideas for the year - one though it was 2007, an other thought 2008 - or that they forgot that boom town was 2006 not 2005 and made an error in the "couple of years ago" utopia line. edited by StuartDD 20:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Martha's Myspace Page

I've been told that Martha's Myspace page is really reliable for dates and is run by the BBC, its used time and time again for references so i'd like to know, is there anywhere where the BBC has confirmed that there behind it or is it just a fan? I'm asking this because somone just tried to use it to date the last scene of the family of blood episode using this site as a reference.--Wiggstar69 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Martha's blog is BBC-run - they released a 42 tie-in post early and deleted it, IIRC. Star Wars canon is a perfect example of levels of canon, btw: the word of Russell and episodes are top-canon, ancillary websites are lower down, spoofs are non-canon. Will (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

A question: - I'm guessing that some of you have, likely on Microsoft Word, your own timelines of A, B and C. Yes, most probably Doctor Who. My question is, if you were siting a source for a year, would you really write "Comments by David Tennant, who said it was some time after The Runaway Bride" or "The Radio Times of blahblahblah week"? IMHO, a source should come from an episode, fil, novel, comic or tie-in website. Onnnn the other hand, I have to admit hypocrisy...my dating of Guinan's birthyear of 1670 is based on a 1993 statement made by Richard Arnold. Oops. [User: Stripey].

Human Nature/ Family of Blood is three days at least

I've just changed back the note on Human Nature/FOB to three days - aside from the breif clips in the future. day 1: Opening scenes at the school - at night the green star shoots over the sky. day 2: Matha watches the clips in the TARDIS (clearly morning) - at night the dance with the cliffhanger, then the rest of the action up to the Family of blood's ship being blown. day 3: The doctor says goodbye to Matron, and then Tim outside the TARDIS (again, cleary morning) Hence at least 3 days. StuartDD 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, correct.--Wiggstar69 08:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Martha's Blog

I like this. I use it for a great deal of data, but regarding Latimer's 11/11 scene, it contradicts the great female-priest and prayerbook research you other Whovians came up with. On this one occasion, I prefer the fans [1994 - 1999] to Martha [2008]. [User: Stripey].

The way I see it, details from the real world don't have any canon standing at all (and are merely assumed to be correct) until they're acknowledged on-screen, whereas Martha's blog has at least some canon standing (albeit inferior to the series itself). Where canon and real world assumption collide, canon takes precedence, at least until contradicted by a higher canon source. Personally I just cherry-pick my canon, so it matters little to me, but I would assume Wikipedia's system is more uniform. --77.99.30.226 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 or 2008

Readng the above it seems clear that there's conflicting information, both on and off screen, about the year series 3 is set in. I can't see anything that "establishes" it to be 2008 (or 2007). I think these episodes should have a section of their own like the UNIT ones do but if they must be tied to a year then the balance of on-screen evidence so far shows it to be 2007 (specifically, to be before "The Runaway Bride"). And I think 'Blink' even reffered to series 3 being set before "The Runaway Bride" when the Doctor said "things don't always happen to me in the right order, gets a bit confusing, especialy at weddings". 172.215.165.79 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, TRB airs immediately after Doomsday. They both share an identical scene. Plus we've discussed this at length - Martha saying "there was an earthquake in Cardiff a couple of years ago" dates it to 2008. Will (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
"A couple of years" is vague, and is over-whelmed by the references to 2007. Again, there is nothing to establish either year beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the majority of the evidence so far favours 2007. 172.206.142.80 14:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

They had an earthquake in Cardiff a couple of years ago. Was that you?

Will (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It all took place in the year of our Lord 2007.

The Doctor"Human Nature"

172.206.142.80 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That only refers to what happened prior to the Doctor explaining the function of the watch to Martha. Which incidentally, was the Eurovision Song Contest 2007. Except for that quote, there isn't a single piece of evidence placing series 3 in 2007. Oh, and Blink is a story apart from the rest of series 3 - the Doctor never makes an actual appearance in 2007 in that episode. Will (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
He says he has been dreaming he's an adventurer for some tme, and last night Martha was in his dream and "it all took place in the year of our Lord 2007". On top of that there is all the evidence in the footnote you keep deleting - most importantly, that Saxon becomes Prime Minister during series 3 but is already Prime Minister by "The Runway Bride". If there wasn't any other evidence, the these stories would't have been being dated to 2007 before "Human Nature" was broadcast, but thi argument has been going on since "Smith and Jones" and "The Shakespeare Code". And your now basing your argument on a reference in Martha's blog - which dates all of its entires to 2007 and which have repeatedly said shouldn't be referred to! 172.159.43.106 16:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Who said that the military unit was part of the British army? Will (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
They share an identical scene in the TARDIS, but then the Doctor returns to Donna's time, which could (theoretically) be anytime. It gets dated by its own references (eg the Doctor's conversations with Donna about the past invasions, Mr Saxon's ordering the shooting), and shouldn't be dated by episodes either side. Gwinva 09:12, 12 June 2007
When John Smith says '2007' he is talking about what had happened in his dreams and in the book, all of which took place in 2007, so his talking about previous events.--Wiggstar69 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer folks, is to keep it VAGUE. Anything more explicit than this without canonical evidence is simply incorrect.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said in "Martha's own section" above, we should keep it at 2008 untill we are given specific information telling us that all of Series 3's contempory episodes are in 2007. I am therfore reverting the page back to place them in 2008.

StuartDD 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

But the most of the evidence is for 2007, so we should keep it there until we know otherwise. 172.141.141.193 04:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Evidence for 2008
"There was an earthquake in Cardiff a couple of years ago. Was that you?"
"And he took me to Helsinki. To last year's Eurovision contest!"
"Saxon shooting down that big alien deathstar thing"
"Evidence" for 2007
John Smith saying that the adventures took place in 2007. This is a controversial statement in itself - he could be talking about the Eurovision trip, his adventures in Rose, or simply that the Doctor keeps taking Martha to 2007 (she says he does in his blog: "It all started when we, yet again, arrived in 2007. I'm not sure why we keep going back there but I'm seriously hoping it's not because that's when Rose was from.")
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows hasn't been released - that's synthesis and doesn't account for tiny differences between the universes (like still using the Alternative Service Book in 2008)
"Saxon has power over the military" - or just one unit. Or a paramilitary.
Martha's blog does have the datestamps as 2007 - as it's intended for a fan to read, not Martha's in-universe friends.
You might want to look up WP:3RR, WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:WEASEL. Will (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)