Talk:Doctor Who story arcs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Story arcs in Doctor Who)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Doctor Who story arcs was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-continuity information[edit]

I just finished re-watching Season 1 and it seems to me that at the beginning the writers didn't necessarily know where they were going with the Bad Wolf storyline. I'm curious how far ahead the season-long stories are planned, and whether the Bad Wolf story was planned from the beginning. This kind of information should be in the article if it's available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Series 29 (Series 3)[edit]

The arc in this series is non-existent, but the only kind of story arc is the the build up to episode 11 - Utopia, episode 12 - Sound of Drums and episode 13 - The Last of The Time Lords, like the chameleon arc, the face of bo says "You... are... not... alone", Professor Yana (You Are Not Alone), (Maybe you could consider you are not alone as a arc), etc. But as of episode 12, that is all has been revealed. Also, I tell a lie in the above, as Mr. Saxon is the main recuring theme, and is yet another anagram - Torchwood = Doctor Who and Master No.Six - Mr. Saxon. He is mentioned in most episodes. Dalek356

Burn with me![edit]

This is so one, its got to!

Definately not a Story arc. --OZOO (vote saxon) 10:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
could be, it has been on DW 3 times.
That would've made (mild) sense if this article was still Recurring themes in Doctor Who continuity. Now it's story arcs, so only things like Bad Wolf and Mr Saxon are allowed.--OZOO (vote saxon) 20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fire at will"...?![edit]

I've removed the suggestion that "fire at will" is a recurring theme. It isn't. It's a military order, not specific to Doctor Who but generally used in popular culture, and happens to have been used twice over the course of the last two years in largely identical situations. Suggesting it is a recurring theme is really overegging it. (I'm also of a mind that "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry" is not a recurring theme, either - it's just the way people speak (or at least write scripts)! Anybody with me on that one?) Peeper 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I dissagree about "I'm Sorry...", if it was only the odd couple of times like "fire at will" I'd say yes but it's almost every other episode, it even happened in Torchwood. ≈ Seraph 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm not persuaded either way, but I think it would be interesting and important for WP to have a discussion about it so thanks for responding. You could well be right; I just think that the additional "I'm so sorry" is nothing more than a way of scripting the sentiment "I'm sorry" with added poignancy. So, in effect, we are seeing a pattern in the way people apologise for things. But let's see how the discussion goes...interesting stuff (I'm interested, I'm so interested.... ;) ) Peeper 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention it was used in Remembrance of the Daleks, ep. 1. ZOMG, it must be a recurring theme =o Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 11:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Repatition=a poor script writer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs to Doctor being a doctor[edit]

Is this really a recurring theme? I don't think so. At most, a recurring joke. Tphi 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I think we should move this page to "Story arcs in Doctor Who" or something similar that shows that this page isn't just for "stuff that's been mentioned twice". Percy Snoodle 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord includeable if we did split the article? Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 15:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but no more than they are at the moment. I don't really see that as a problem. I'm not talking about splitting the article, though - I'm talking about renaming it to change its focus away from listcruft and examplefarms. Percy Snoodle 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"I'm sorry. I'm so sorry" and 23-6-801 are geniune recurring themes, but they aren't story arcs, though. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That's true; but since there's nothing (yet) to be said about them other than listing their appearances, including them makes the article worse, not better. Percy Snoodle 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely it's OR or speculation or something to say that "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry" is a 'genuine recurring theme'? I've yet to see any verified source telling us that the sorry thing is a story arc...ah, my lonely campaign continues. Peeper 12:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's another good reason. Now, would it be best to take this to WP:RM or WP:WHO? Percy Snoodle 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's my opinion, for what it's worth, that "I'm so sorry" is a "recurring theme" in the sense that it recurs, and this does seem to be deliberate, at least now (it's in all three of the new books, but not the last three, suggesting they hadn't noticed it yet), but not a story arc, any more than "Fantastic!" was a story arc. It's a catchphrase, that's all. Daibhid C 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry" is not an arc. I was the one listing its uses on individual episode pages at the time they were shown, but then all the refences got shifted here... Wolf of Fenric 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Splitting of the Atom[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that the splitting of the atom has been referenced three times so far in series 3? The first was in the Shakespeare Code, when the Doctor explains how with the right string of numbers a human can split the atom, (whereas the Carrionites use words.) The second was in Evolution of the Daleks, when the Doctor states that "this planet hasn't even split the atom yet," and asks where the Daleks plan to get the energy from for their plan. The third was in the Lazarus Experiment, when Lazarus states that his invention is "the most important advance since Rutherford split the atom." Could there be something behind these references? Dphoyes 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say it isn't really an arch word and is simply refering to one of the greatest (or worse depending on your point of veiw) discoveries in mankind's history. Wild ste 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

'Tapping to the theme tune'[edit]

To me it seemed like his [heart-beat]]. If he is indeed The Master, then it would tie in (two hearts.)Stewart 22:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that in the article? If it is, it should be removed: it's THE SOUND OF DRUMS! U-Mos 14:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It was more like the theme tune to me then anything else. Could be conisdered breaking the fourth wall.Wild ste 14:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It is the theme tune as this is the prologue scene that leads into the title sequence for The Sound of Drums.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MrClaxson (talkcontribs)
It seems clear now that he is tapping to the sound of drums... whatever the heck that is meant to be.--Dr who1975 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rose's Return?[edit]

Dalek356: I have noticed somthing, in the new series 3 (Exept from episode 1, as like every other series), the name Rose has been mentioned, there is also a mention of "He is not alone", by The Face Of Bo, that is followed by the confidential episode, where at the end Tennent says "He is right, and he is wrong", might that mean that he is right i.e. The Master and he is wrong, Rose. Also the Doctor never gives up hope and keeps himself "pure", and not exepting Marther. On top of all this the Daleks use "emergancy temporal shift", meaning they travel beetween dimentions. This must mean they open a small rip between worlds, as mentioned in Army of Ghosts, meaning there might be a portal between the universes, and as Rose now works at Torchwood, the best place in the univerese for alien tech. that might mean that she goes through and joins the Doctor. Want more proof, well it is also said that the last two episodes of series 3 The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Time Lords is set in the present year, as was Doomsday (Doctor Who), as Rose is in on parrallel earth. Does this mean she is back in series 3? That will be answered soon...

How does a trip through time (emergency temporal shift) cause a rip between parallel universes? If that was right the Doctor would have gone and got Rose a long time ago. He's probably keeping himself ""pure"" in order to avoid getting to attached again (see The Scream of the Shalka). "You are not alone" isn't in Runaway Bride or The Shakespeare Code either, but "Rose" is. And I think if Rose was indeed returning, The Sun would have picked up on it...--OZOO (vote saxon) 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Russell T Davies cancelled the spin off Rose Tyler: Earth Defence to avoid spoiling the character, making it doubtful.(Black Dalek 16:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)).

I really couldn't see Rose returning anyway; I know the Doctor usually manages to get around the impossible, but I believe he said in the final episode of series two that any further attempt to make contact with her could tear both universes apart (or something to that effect) Monkeymox 07:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The doctor also said that it was easy to travel to alternate realities when the Time Lords existed...implying that it isn't physically impossible to rescue Rose, just beyond his curent ability. Also, he said goodbye to Rose on Bad Wolf Bay, but that means our Rose arragned that location when she had the power of the time vortex in her. The alternate unvierse didn't have a Rose. She'll be back. Carinae Dragonblood 18:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Create a Harold Saxon page?[edit]

? --Billpg 08:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not major enough; if the rumours turn out to be true it will probably end up as a redirect to what everyone says he is.--OZOO (vote saxon) 10:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The link would be at Mr. Saxon anyway since "Harold" is only mentioned as his name in one instance, and Wikipedia works by notability. When Saxon is revealed as a character, we will make Mr. Saxon link to his section of the "villains" article which will mention and link to the themes article. Should he be revealed as a returning villain, the villains section will use the {{main}} template and then a brief description, and the existing character article will describe in more detail.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

how can he not be major enough!--click here 07:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

All the infomation in that article is from the arc. We know almost nothing about Mr. Saxon. If he turns out to be a recurring charcter (NOT a disguise) then he should get is own article, but until then, no. --OZOO (vote saxon) 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote Harry Saxon, our finest M.P., ever!

Saxon's identity[edit]

I've removed the following section called "Saxon's identity" because it seems to be rumor and original research, sourced to unsourced speculation on a blog or media site.

In DWM 380 Julie Gardner remarks that one of Russell T Davies' scripts includes the word "Axon". Rumours suggest that this could foreshadow the return of the Master, who appeared in the Third Doctor story The Claws of Axos alongside the Axons. "Mister Saxon" is also an anagram of "Master No. Six".
The extended trailer at the end of The Lazarus Experiment shows Saxon on television, bearing his trademark smile, and also in the cabinet room (as seen in World War Three), sitting at the table wearing an oxygen mask, tapping his fingers in groups of four on the table, while others lie unconscious (or dead) beside him.

The reference given was which as can be seen is pure speculation. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger discussion[edit]

The Key to Time isn't a "proper" serial, it's just an umbrella title, which falls under the scope of this article now. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree and support merging from both The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord. BreathingMeat 22:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that both articles should be merged, but not until The Key to Time has undergone some cleanup first Monkeymox 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this makes sense, after all, those were also story arcs that were comprised of multiple serials. --Alphamone 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree The Key to Time, as it's made of six serials. Disagree Trial of a Time Lord as that was broadcast as One seriel (if anything the four segments should be merged into the 'Trial' article!) --OZOO (vote saxon) 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Trial of a Time Lord - Strong Disagree
The Key to Time - Weak Agree
While the Key To Time is not a proper Dr. Who serial and should probably be merged into this document (although perhaps the page should be altered to instead by about the Key To Time itself and not the story arc), The Trial of a Timelord is the name of a Dr. Who serial and thus has notability as it's own page. At best TOATL should be referenced by this page... not merged into it. How could any whovian in their right mind suggest merging Trial of a Timelord into here.--Dr who1975 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr who1975, - I Agree to "Key", but disagree to "Trial" being merged. --GracieLizzie 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I suggested merging The Trial of a Time Lord. It's been about 20 years since I watched any significant portion of it, but reviewing its current article, IMO it straddles the borderline between (1) one long serial and (2) four regular serials connected by a strong arc. I defer to those who are more directly familiar with the material. Emurphy42 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
But nothing will change the fact that it is one long serial... That's how it's structured and referenced... even when it was released on video. By youR logic... all Dr. Who's should be merged into this section since all Dr. Who story arcs were made up of more than one episode...after all... Logopolis is actually a four part story... and The Dalek Master Plan is a 12 part story. If there are problems with the srticle... they should be cleaned up within the article.--Dr who1975 18:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Your claim is debatable, see Doctor Who story title controversy#The Trial of a Time Lord. I don't have significant time to participate in said debate, so I'll content myself with throwing out this pointer. Emurphy42 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the title for the story that was shown on the screen when the story was first aired is at least enough to give thst title notability. I might even hazard to say that that makes it the story's official title. Just so you don't bring it up: individually named William Hartnell episodes are a different matter.--Dr who1975 17:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just finished it. I also changed it from a "list of various recurring words" to an actual discussion of story arcs.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

After the fact Versus Preplanned Story Arcs[edit]

Something about recent addiotions to this page is bothering me... should it only include storys that were written for the purpose of creating an arc (such as the Master season, The Key To Time, The Entropy Season, ect.) or should it also include ones that were tied together after the fact (the Fenric Arc) as well as stories that were merely sequels (such as the Peladon, Yeti, and Mara stories. I'm concerned that we're getting into a slippery slope with this.... I mean... don't the 5 or 6 Davros stories comprise an Arc?... What about all Dalek Stories... how about Cybermen... How about all UNIT stories. Don't the pages on the Mara, Fenric etc. already cover this information?--Dr who1975 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt strongly enough about this to remove the Mara and Peladon stuff. However, I'm on the fence about the Mike Yates and Fenric thing for different reasons. With Mike Yates... it seems like the page is taking a companion plot line and making an arc out of it when it is more of just a normal function of serialised TV writing (after all... Borusa is a character with an interesting developemental arc too, why not have him in here... how about all stories with the Master). With Fenric... it's more likely that we're dealing with a story arc... my problem is that it is tied together simply by a few lines in the Curse of Fenric... like the writers decided to make an Arc out of this after the fact. The stories didn;t occur back to back which also questions it's "arcness"tm. My big question about this one would be: "Is the Fenric stuff normally refered to as an Arc in 'Who literature, documentaries, or panels?" Anyone know?--Dr who1975 05:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Having been asked to comment, I will state why I believe the arcs I added are valid. Firstly, Mike Yates's storyline is character development and as you rightly state this is a normal process in television writing. However, his fall from grace and eventual redemption were key to the plots of those stories in which it took place. I believe it qualifies as an arc thread because of this, especially as the same production staff were involved in the stories through which the events occured. It's certainly more substantial than brief references to "Bad Wolf" and "Torchwood" that tended not to serve the specific stories in which they appeared, albeit that they act as an arc theme leading to series finales.
Secondly, the Fenric arc would seem not to be after the fact, but rather planned, partly tied with Ace's ongoing character development and partly tied with the Doctor's ongoing fight against Fenric. The chess game in Silver Nemesis, for example, does not serve any purpose in that story suggesting pre-planning on the part of the writers for it to be referred to in The Curse of Fenric.
As for the Peladon and Mara stories, the reason I believe these to differ from other recurrances of monsters is that the second stories in both cases are written as direct sequels to the first story. The Monster of Peladon charts how the society has progressed since The Curse of Peladon and features the recurrance of Alpha Centuri and Ice Warriors. Snakedance sees the Mara possess Tegan once more, it being able to exert influence over her thanks to having possessed her in Kinda.
Arguably, their inclusion does pose a minefield of problems. Does the ongoing Davros/Imperial Daleks/Renegade Daleks storyline count? The Face of Boe's message? Lady Cassandra's recurrance? The Silurians and the Sea Devils alliance?
It is hard to define 'arcs'. I see them as any ongoing plotline beyond mere character development. If this page is to be called 'Story arcs in Doctor Who', I believe it should be refelective of all continuing plotlines, not just biased in favour of lists of "Bad Wolf" and "Torchwood" references - both of which qualify for the page, just not as the main focus of it.
I do not believe an arc can be discredited because its origins involve retconning. Take Lost, for example, the writers add to their arcs all the time, for instance splicing characters into backgrounds of flashbacks. The episode Exposé which concludes two characters' arc is a prime example of this, Nikki and Paulo being inserted into scenes from earlier episodes. Wolf of Fenric 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
How about dividing the episodes into season-long arcs (8, 16, 18, 23, 27, 28, 29) and multi-episode arcs (Yates, New Beginnings, Fenric, etc)? Half of the headers aren't... large... enough to warrant a header, but do warrant inclusion. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The Mara and Peladon stuff were written as sequels... not big long ambitious story arcs. Just because they have a medium degree of interconnected plot doesn't change that.
  • I'm neutral on seperatng it out to season and multi episode arcs, if someone wants to do that then be my guest.
  • I'm leanig toward leaving Fenric (because as Wolf said.. retconning does not invalidate an arc and it is questionable whether there was no preplanning or not) and removing Yates at this point.
  • Nobody answerd my question about the Fenric Arc... do people regularly refer to it as an arc?
  • On an unimportant note: Just because the Doctor plays chess for no plot reason in Silver Nemesis does not mean it was part of a plan... McKoy did lots of silly game type things for no reason. If they had instead written it where Fenric had to learn how to juggle they could've cited the multiple times that Mckoy has Juggled for no reason in Dr. Whos. As I said... I think I'll leave Fenric there... largely because of the ambiguity. If you wish to comment and don't know the arguments. Please read above and comment.--Dr who1975 19:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll concede on the Peladon and Mara stories for now, but I still disagree on Yates. I'd like to know what others think. The Fenric arc is often overlooked, but I maintain that there is enough evidence to suggest it was planned without bordering on original research on my part, or else upon writing The Curse of Fenric an arc was created through retconning. Wolf of Fenric 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and for the sake of clarity, I believe an example of original research on my part would constitute asserting that the Doctor's outburst "Even I can't play this many games at once!" when not seen to be playing any games in Ghost Light, the story immediately prior to The Curse of Fenric, alludes to his ongoing battle against Fenric, serving as a precursor to the following story. I strongly feel it is a reference to Fenric, but having not seen this written on any official documentation, I cannot add this to the article. Wolf of Fenric 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That's still a pretty ambigous comment... he was also at the time playing games wih Neo Nazis, Lady Penforth, the Cybermen and the Silver Nemesis statue itself but like I said... I'm leaving the Fenric thing. It's ambiguous enough where I can see it might be an arc.--Dr who1975 00:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, I've never known anyone refer to a Fenric story arc until now.

To be honest, this is a confusing page, as it covers slow building stories (Bad Wolf, Torchwood, Mr Saxon) along with major subplots (Black Guardian Trilogy, E-Space Trilogy) Umbrella storylines (The Key To Time, The Trial of a Timelord) loose connections (Space Station Nerva, Entropy, The Return of the Master) and arguably should also include any story with more than one sequel (Davros and the Daleks, New Earth) and long running storylines (Borusa, The Master's quest to continue living). Are there any other methods of categorisation which could work better to understand what does and what doesn't belong in this thread? ( 16:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

In response to Dr who1975's last comment - no he wasn't. That quote is taken from Ghost Light not Silver Nemesis. However, as I say, I cannot add it without official proof. Wolf of Fenric 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I always assumed that line was a Cartmellian reference to the complexity of what the Doctor needed to do in that particular story, which was to manage all the different people and aliens at Gabriel Chase, with their different motives and agendas. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 23:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... what Karen said... McKoy could've been talking about that... let's there was Light, and the dozen other characters. That;s the problem with McKoy stories... he's like a spider at the center of this ridiculously over complicated web.--Dr who1975 23:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye[edit]

...on people adding "Love & Monsters" as an example of the Saxon arc even though the arc is self contained in series three despite the word having been there before. Also, watch out for people claiming to have heard Bad Wolf in "Rose" despite it never being confirmed with the rest - wishful thinking on their part. We can't source speculation as fact. Appearances of the arc word outside the arc are all dealt with in prose, which is much nicer to look at and allows more significance to be placed on the actual arc.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Zythe - I put Rose in there with a full explanation as to why it doesn't count as an official mention of the arc... but also why many people beleive the word Bad Wolf is in there. That really should have been enough... I stated the facts as they were laid out... isn;t wikipedia about the truth even when you have two large yet differing concensus dealing with it. If you think about ir... what I added... will prevent people from having to police this page and will show people attempting to add why there is doubt... educationg people instead of leaving them hanging... by keeping mention of it off the page you are inviting people to argue with you. The solution I had was much better. The controversy needs to at least be mentioned.--Dr who1975 16:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets' keep this to real arcs[edit]

Such as Bad Wolf, the Trial of a Time Lord etc. and remove stuff like the Fenric arc and New Earth. A STORY arc is not a character arc and will follow a certain "arc shaped" format, which is the build, climax and dénouement. the Curse of Fenric, Space Station Nerva, New Earth etc. should all be merged into one section about "Other arcs" at the bottom of the article. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with you (which is why I never put the space station Nerva thing on the page.. although if you paired it down to Ark in Space, Sontaren Experiemnt, Genesis of the Daleks, and Revenge of the Cybermen you could debatebly still call it the Space Staion Nerva Arc... I'm not planning on doing that for the momen.. it's just a thought).... I can tell you that you're going to get arguments on New Earth, Fenric, and Season 11 regardless (I always thought they should've release season 11 as a box set). I'm personally on the fence about those. I generally agree that the a story arc should have the elements you state and should be something that we can prove the writers intended from the beginning. The question becomes... was the fenric thing planned all along... and... was the Face of Boa message planned all along (it definetly was by the time we got to season 2). Of course... this throws "New Beginnings" into a bit of doubt... but I seem to recall that both JNT and Cris Bidmead planned for Peter davison to have a meeting with the Master immediatly after Logopolis so that would hold up this arc.--Dr who1975 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
At least there are tonnes of references for the Bad Wolf/Torchwood/Saxon stuff. If this became revived series and classic series, we could keep the quality level of the soureable stuff up. We could also rename the page "series arcs" (or "season arcs") to work it all down. I mean, a program's entire run should form some sort of arc, for example... you could argue the Bad Wolf arc goes all the way to Torchwood's End of Days where Jack kills Abaddon, but you'd have a hard time. This article was looking really sharp a little while after the initial move, though. As for the whether planning is involved, I don't know how relevant that is, but examples of continuity and a definite story arc are not the same thing.
Does the Master Season have a start, middle and a conclusion ("arc shape") or is it just a set of stories with the same villain? Is the Fenric arc just you know, continuity, in-references etc.? New Earth is a self-contained arc, yes, but it's more of a character arc. *sigh* I think we're going to have to change the title and lead to explain this, with the second paragraph of the lead briefly citing other arcs. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes the Master seson has quite a few ins and outs and a very definitive end... the master is introduce but looses his TARDIS in Terror of the Autons and doesn't get it back till the end of Mind of Evil (those two stories are the beginning).. then we go into a period where UNIT is still looking for the Master "Claws of Axos" and "Colony in Space" finally... the Master is caught and put into custody at the end of the Daemons. The end of the story is written in a way to denote that we will not have to worry about the Msater now that he has been captured.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr who1975 (talkcontribs)
Ah, good! :) Is the Fenric arc a definitive arc or just three stories loosely interlinked by continuity? Should it be deleted altogether, merged into "other arcs" or just compacted?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a point of contention. See my discussion above with Wolf of Fenric above entitled "After the fact Versus Preplanned Story Arcs". I really wish you'd left new beginnings up there. It fit's the story arc structure pretty well.--Dr who1975 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I gueass you didn't remove it... but in my mind... it's still really a major arc, not a minor one.--Dr who1975 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Having noticed the Fenric arc here (and other classic storylines), I was surprised not to see the so-called Perivale Trilogy of Season 26. One might argue it's a character arc rather than a story arc, but I'm not sure that's a particularly meaningful distinction. In any case, I'm sure DWM etc. referenced the three Perivale-related stories as a deliberate storyline. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 23:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's see... is that Ghost Light, Curse of Fenric, and Survival?--Dr who1975 23:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The Doctor arranges for Ace to revisit the house she burned down and confront her past, Ace meets family members as more secrets of her past are revealed, and Ace returns to present-day Perivale. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 23:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"Face of Boe Trilogy"?? Where has this term been used before? This article is growing worringly more fancrufty every day. Tphi 00:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we rename the article to "Season arcs in Doctor Who" so we can get rid of all these character arcs and trilogy serials?~ZytheTalk to me! 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Season arcs are arguably more important, but I think having the season long arcs listed as major arcs, and then throwing everything else into an 'Other Arcs' section works well. The Black Guardian, E-Space, Davros, New Earth and The Master all deserve to be included in the minor section. The only problem then is whether 'The Master Season', and more precisely 'The Entropy Season' deserve to be in the same league as The Key To Time, The Trial of a Timelord or Mr Saxon. I'm half and half on 'The Master Season', but I'm not too convinced the fact that all the serials deal with decay counts as an arc. (JLaidlaw- forgot to log in.) ( 14:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
Sounds like a theme, not an arc, but I haven't watched any of those serials.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand why people might think it's a theme. But that's like saying Bad Wolf is only a theme because most of the episodes it occurs in have nothing to do with the actual arc and simply have the words in them. Let me clarify: I've added some sentences to the article to show that, like the new Dr. Who seasons, Entropy (which we could even call the season 18 word) starts out as merely a theme and then evolves into so much more. In the Leisure Hive and Meglos, Entropy is indeed merely a theme (just as Bad Wolf is merely some words that show up). Then the TARDIS encounters a CVE... which (unbeknownst to the Dr. but later made beknownst to everyone) was created by the Logopolitans to fight Entropy (thus a gradual building of the long term plot... a hallmark of a story Arc)... Entropy remains the theme of each of the stories of the E-Space trilogy but there is also a focus on finding where the CVE's came from in the subtext. Once the Doctor gets out of E-space... there is a greater reference to CVE's in the discussion between Adric and the Doctor at the beginning of Keeper of Traken... which again has Entropy as a theme. Then in Logopolis... we find out that the Logopolitans created the CVE's to fight Universal entropy. The Master unknowingly sabotages the CVE's and the entropy field threatens to destroy the universe. Not only is this a classic story arc with a beginning, middle, and culmination... I think it is probably the season that has most influenced the new Dr. Who TV show. The new show appears to be following this structure every season. I know it's has been referred to as The Entropy season on the bonus documentaries on the Leisure Hive... I will find a reference for the citation.--Dr who1975 16:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd support resticting the article to the three new season arcs. I've heard "arc word" used more than "season arc" - perhaps Arc words in Doctor Who or similar? Percy Snoodle 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mr" or "Mr." Saxon[edit]

From Full stop: "Usually, in British English, "Dr" and "Mr" do not need a full stop, as they include both the first and last letter of the abbreviated word." There is nothing 'unusual' about its use here. Similarly, the 'Mr.' article states, "In the United Kingdom, most Commonwealth countries and Ireland, a full stop (in the US and Canada, a period) does not generally follow the abbreviated form, which is in line with standard practice for abbreviations in those countries." More importantly, I have spent a great deal of time going through all the revived series episode articles (up to and including "Human Nature"), replacing all the dead links so they now link correctly to Story arcs in Doctor Who#Mr Saxon. If you revert to US spelling, not only will you be ignoring Wiki policy for the DW articles (and the MoS) in general, but you will render all the episode links useless (since they will default to the head of the article and not the relevant section). Chris 42 09:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Season 26[edit]

Three of the four serials this year, anyway, deal specifically with the Doctor forcing Ace to confront her fears: of her past, present, and future. There's some discussion of the "Ace trilogy" on the Survival special features.

While we're here, the "Cartmel Masterplan" comes pretty close to a story arc, with its consistent leaking of clues about the Doctor's history and identity. In practice, this isn't all that different from the modern "arc word" business. The only difference is that the show got canceled before the story-as-such was able to reach its conclusion.

Also, though it's a looser dramatic theme, season 12 deals with a single bungled TARDIS voyage. Basically the point of the season was to get the TARDIS back and return Harry (who had only been tricked on board in the first place) to his own time. You could call it the "Harry's Misadventure" arc. Or, uh, something less daft, perhaps.

I don't disagree, but without a reference any story arc we find would be original research, so it wouldn't belong on wikipedia; we certainly shouldn't start naming them ourselves. Personally, I think we should restrict our attention to preplanned story arcs and possibly just the arc words of the new series. The Cartmel Masterplan is a different sort of thing, and I think it's probably best discussed on its own article. Percy Snoodle 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to check it again later, to see if they offer any name for the Ace arc in the special features; still, it is discussed in some depth by some of the people behind it, as a deliberate storyline for the season.
It was called the Perivale Trilogy in publications around that time. Unfortunately, my relevant books and DWMs seem to be mostly in boxes at the moment. --Karen | Talk | contribs 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Words versus Stories[edit]

It seems that the sections dedicated to the arcs mainly consist of a detailed list of the words. Though this is fine for the Torchwood arc, surely the Mr Saxon arc is much more complex than a string of words. For example, though The Lazarus Experiment and 42 are mentioned for showing the machinations of the Saxon party, the You Are Not Alone message is not mentioned, which considering the reference to YANA is definitely part of the Arc. I'd also say that the Human Nature two-parter is needed to understand the Chameleon arch properly. The Bad Wolf arc doesn't suffer from quite the same problems, but each of the episodes reveal certain facts, the idea of the Last of the Timelords, the introduction of the Daleks, Satellite Five, and the Tardis's telepathic circuits. These events aren't strictly intertwined with the word itself, but all become important in the last episode. 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC) JLaidlaw

I'm going to give it a proper write up at the conclusion of the arc. It will include episodes where the arc word doesn't feature for the purpose of furthering the plot. For instance, "Human Nature" canonised a novel which could offer an explanation as to how the Master survived etc. The Saxon arc has an arc word, but it thankfully more complex than "Bad Wolf" which has an alright write-up itself. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Season 4 Arc[edit]

We can't update the article any time soon... but I'd like to know here on the discussion page... if anyone has seen any potential season 4 arcs yet? You know there's got to be one and it's probably already reared it's head. Maybe something to do with Capt. Jack being immortal.--Dr who1975 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, thats too obvious. It'll be something which would only be noticed in hindsight, like Torchwood in Bad Wolf and Saxon in Love & Monsters. Maybe something to do with the DVDs in Blink (or something, I haven't seen it yet)--OZOO (vote saxon) 07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My guess is it's centred on Martha in some way. Mark H Wilkinson 07:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Timey-wimey stuff, perhaps? Will (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that would "boil an egg at thirty paces, whether you want it to or not". :-) Ilikefood (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Welll... if anyone sees anything then please post something here. I'll be checking.--Dr who1975 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently in this interview, Julie Gardner says "there is an ongoing serial arc for the hand in a jar". If I remember right, there was something mentioned about it in the commentary to Last of the Time Lords, and I don't think Jack ever got it back, so presumably it's for Doctor Who, and not Torchwood.
That said, it doesn't say whether it'll be the main story arc, or just some kind of long term ongoing one, and I personally don't know whether the interview is real - I've never heard of iF Magazine (though it's being used as a reference on Martha Jones, so I'm assuming it's trustworthy). -- 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC).
Surely she was talking about the hand's involvement in the Mr. Saxon Arc for season 3.--Dr who1975 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be strange if she was. The article is dated 30 June 2007 (after first showing of Last of the Time Lords), and the wording was present tense, and she said "ongoing". And the commentary said something about the Doctor keeping the hand I believe (and something to do with the bubbling sound getting annoying). I would assume it still has some importance, though I wouldn't want to guess what. -- 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

I am conviced that the Season 4 Arcword will revolve around the 'Cruciform' since that was the only stand out with no obvious explanation. So maybe Donna and the Doctor will try to stop Dalek Caan from gaining control of the Who version of the Death Star?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Then again, Doctor Who has always had silly words which make no sense in the context of all things alien and futuristic. A lot of stuff to do with Gallifrey is like that. Silver Devestation too. Planet or belt or...? Time Agency. For years. Who are they? ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In Last of the Time Lords, the Master mentioned the 'Medusa Cascade'. Russell T Davies has said 'that's going to come back to haunt us' on the subject of the MC.

I guess you're right but at the moment 'Cruciform' is the only possible arc word I can think of.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

How about Civilization Zero? It's one of the DVDs in Blink (there's a gallery on the website), and was advertised on the homepage for Sound of Drums. I'm just clutching at straws, but it could be... --OZOO (What?) 15:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See, that's much more likeable. Either way, it's speculation. Who knows, one could be s4 and one could be s5...~ZytheTalk to me! 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OK... now we've had the Christmas Special and more time to speculate. Any new news?--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Something in the darkness, this just keeps coming up in everything doctor who and torchwood and it must be a major story arc fore something new. unless it refers to the void ship, but that would be silly lot of effort in saying the afterlife is in the void. T saston (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
In each episode so far in S4, we've had mentions of the Shadow Proclamation, the planet/god Venus, and alien homeworlds going missing, the latter much to the Doctor's visible bafflement. Strong possibilities for "code words" there. Kelvingreen (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of it wrong. This year it's not about codewords. But yes, these things probably do link together. For example, we don't think of "Adam" and "the Initiative" as Buffy season 4 keywords. However, yes, these things are part of the series 4 arc, which will get some sort of name in Doctor Who Confidentail or Doctor Who Magazine eventually, until such time "Series Four arc" will do, until we know what the arc is about at least ("The return of Davros" etc.) ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know there's no code word as such this series, hence the quotation marks above. But as you say, it's still helpful to think of them in this sense, at least for the time being. Kelvingreen (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There's something on Donna's back is another series 4 arc. The Fires of Pompeii has the auger mention it to Donna. (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Taras

'ATMOS' will be something to do with the sontarans, and RTD has mentioned in the PIC commentary that something to do with the taxi was very imprtant, and there was an ATMOS logo/sign on there, Also, there are repeated mentions of donna having 'something on [her] back'. Although the arc could even be about companions- Rose in particular. In partners in crime, she appeared, and in the fires of pompeii, the soothesayer lucius foreshadowed her return
RTD has stated that there are several minor arc words, which will all culminate together in the finale. But I've noticed that there may be another arc word. The title of the eleventh episode "Turn Left".
1)In The Sontaran Strategem the Sat Nav kept saying Turn Left. The Doctor is also heard saying Turn Right not Left. This could have something to do with this episode.
2)In The Shakespeare Code, the Doctor, when running back to the Globe, turns left instead of right, and is told by Martha that they're going the wrong way.
3)In Blink, the video of the Doctor tells Sally Sparrow to "look to the left," indicating that Larry Nightingale is writing the scrips he is reading from.
4)In Army of Ghosts,when the Doctor heads to the spactial disturbance, leaving the Void Sphere Room he turns left and Yvonne Hartman tells him "no Doctor" and he goes right.
5)Also right afterwards:
Matt: "I don't get it, what is it? What am I supposed to be looking for?"
Adola: "Just, go to the Left."
Matt: "Look, Yvonne's going to be back any minute."
Adola: "Just go to the Left"
Matt: "What, you mean in here?"
Adola Nods and Matt goes left and cue dicers, blades and saw noises as he begins screaming. Adola walks away emotionless.
6)Also in Boom Town Captain Jack was telling story when Mickey says 'I knew we should have turned left ' to which Jack replies 'That's my line!'
These are all the mentions I've noticed so far. But I suspect that they could be/are a minor arc word.Lozeko (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I have seen a few hints at the letters RHT, mainly in Smith and Jones. what does RHT stand or mean for, anyone please help? T saston 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Where was it? --OZOO (What?) 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Face of Boe[edit]

I'm a little confused as to why the Face of Boe's three main appearances are classed as an arc. If anything, surely they just form a subset of stories that deal with the Doctor's journey from being last of the Time Lords to "Oh noes, the Master has my TARDIS!"? Mark H Wilkinson 07:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a compromise. Many of us don;t agree with it.--Dr who1975 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Was there any discussion on Captain Jack being the face of Bo? It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere--Qualal (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

E-Space Trilogy[edit]

Would this three-serial arc (Full Circle, State of Decay, and Warrior's Gate) be worthy of inclusion?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It's already in the article, under the entropy section:

Within the season, the stories Full Circle, State of Decay and Warrior's Gate are often known as The E-Space Trilogy


Will (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad Wolf in Gridlock?[edit]

I've heard that in "Gridlock", the Chinese girls have a poster with "Bad Wolf" in Chinese on the wall. Is this true? Orville Eastland 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

yes. Mlewan 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad Wolf virus[edit]

In Love and Monsters, the aliens could not determine Roses identity due to data corruption caused by the Bad Wolf virus. Carinae Dragonblood 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"There's something out there. In the dark. And It's coming."[edit]

This has been referenced continually throughout both DW and Torchwood. I'm gonna look rather silly now coz i can't think of many examples but many times during the 2 shows, someone has said (rather prophetically) something which includes 3 things- 1: something out there, 2: in the dark, and 3: it's coming. They've been said in different orders but always the same 3 things. Goddammit, at the moment I can only think of 2 times it's been said but surely someone can back me up with more examples? In the Torchwood episode "They keep killing suzie," Suzie says it to Jack as she is dying. In the DW episode "The Sound of Drums" either the Doctor or the Master says it at some point, but I can't remember the exact context. Any thoughts? 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor says at the end of "Fear Her" that "Something's coming...a storm's approaching", accompanied by what the transcriber calls the 'Bad Wolf Music' but presumably that's a reference to the arrival of the Daleks/Cybermen during the Army of Ghosts/Doomsday season finale. EtoileLion 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Wolf[edit]

The following text should be removed: "There is some ambiguity as to the in-story purpose of the words, as neither the words themselves nor the context in which they are found appear to be of any particular significance. Exactly how Rose deduces an appropriate course of action from them is not explained, nor is it evident."

Though the appearance of the words "Bad Wolf" is a paradox; it does not necessitate an explanation for the statement Rose made, as the statement defines the paradox. Rose spread those particular words because they were the name of the corporation that she saw. As a result, the corporation came to have that name, along with the other appearances of the phrase through time.--Jeffro77 12:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A self-creating paradox, also an example of a 'grandfather' paradox. You travel back in time and kill your grandfather before your father was born. You then cannot exist to have killed your grandfather. However if you didnt, then your grandfather lived, and you were born, which takes you back to square one. Rose created Bad Wolf throughout time and space purely to self-create her own future. The Tenth Doctor does something similar in the latest Children In Need episode - he only knows how to prevent the explosion because he saw himself do it in the future. EtoileLion 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an ontological paradox, not a grandfather paradox - basically, it's a "what came first, the action or the information" paradox; essentially, neither came first and they're just going round and round and round in time. (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article implies 'bad wolf' doesn't appear in 'Rose', yet there is much discussion that the Nestene conscienceness does attempt to articulate those words (in the main Bad Wolf article) Bingggo (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Nestene consciousness very clearly mouths the words "Bad Wolf" in "Rose" E1tiger (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This part of the Bad Wolf section is incorrect:

The phrase reappeared in the 2008 series episode "Turn Left": At the end of this episode all text turns into "Bad Wolf", including the backlit signs and the board on the front of the TARDIS. This is described by the Doctor to be the end of the universe.

It is not the "Bad Wolf" part that marks the end of the universe, but the red lighting of the TARDIS and the Cloister Bell being sounded. (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, RTD says in the Confidential for that episode that Bad Wolf signifies the end of the universe as it denotes the return of Rose through dimensions - and the fact that she is able to travel through dimensions to spread this warning means that the universe must be collapsing to allow her through. Tphi (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

I'm quick failing this GA nomination. The article is barely referenced and seems to be largely original research. As it stands at the moment, I would think this is a borderline article for deletion. Joe King 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What idoit nominated this for GA. Are they trying to get the article deleted!--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Robot and onwards[edit]

I see a brief dismissal of this series as being relevant further up, but I was wondering why? Every episode connects directly, and Nerva features twice. It seems as coherent as the Entropy series. Eiphel (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I used to have it there a long time ago but it was removed because "interconectedness astory arc does not make".--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


May be part of a previous arc but otherwise, what does this mean RHT

it appeared in the first of marth Jones episodes, in the hopital where the doctor and her were on the mooon ? anyone know ? pleaseeeee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Series 4 Arc[edit]

a recent hint that the series 4 arc has something to do with little red riding hood it is said a charecter called that will feautre in the series 4 finale mostly so far the speculation is that this is a codename for davros worth putting in??? source: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


With the creation of season/by-Doctor pages imminent (eg Doctor Who (series 4), we oughta look at splitting this article off into those pages. Basically:

  • When the respective articles are created, split them out.
  • Restore Key to Time and Trial and make them episode-season hybrids
  • Split Bad Wolf to Medusa Cascade into S1 S2 S3 S4 lists. Sceptre (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Bad Wolf could make a decent subsection of a series one article, yes. It would also help to limit Bad Wolf references to ones that are relevant to that 2005 story arc.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What would happen to the classic series stuff?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • They'd go to their respective season pages (e.g. "Doctor Who (season x)") Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Series 4 Psychic Paper[edit]

So far, I've noticed that the Doctor has flashed out his Psychic paper in both episodes and both times have appeared blank, which results in a little bit of confusion by the recipient character. Would this happen to be a story arc? I haven't noticed the paper failing before... I'd wait until the third episode to see if it fails again before adding it to the article. Has anyone else noticed this? JameiLei (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was just being seen as blank by us, but the characters see it as he wants- in Partners in Crime he's definately recognized as a health and safety guy. It previously failed for Shakespeare in The Shakespeare Code--OZOO 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's always seen as blank by us, it just appears to contain the necessary credentials to whomever the Doctor is showing it to. Always has done since its introduction. Tphi (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fires of Pompeii Clue[edit]

I think the article missed a big clue -- something about Donna having something on her back. Coriolanus2 (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Coriolanus2

Yes but we can only discuss it with a proper source talking about it being a potential clue. Otherwise it's uncited speculation.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OR in Series 4[edit]

The series 4 Arc section is turning into a hot-bed of OR. I think we should remove the section - with the exception of the first paragraph and the Davies quote - until we get more definitive infomation. --OZOO 13:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's room for some info, if worded carefully. Tphi (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Strip away everything but the quote.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence that simply lists what episodes the Medusa Cascade has been mentioned in. This is not OR as it is simply a plain mention of the facts and it stems from the cited quote.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tphi (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rose Tyler arc[edit]

In both Partners and Pompeii Rose is both mentioned, presumably leading up to Rose's main appearence in Turn Left (Doctor Who) so I think a short sentence on that might be notable. Chances are the Rose arc and another one will be there, but we'll leave that for now. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! |my chatroom] 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree... while Rose is definetly part of whatever is going on... So's Martha and so's a lot of other things... it's not unusual that the Doctor's previous companions might get mentioned... if we had a notable article to cite about it then that would be different but it is not discernable from regular plot building if taken on it's own.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Unless you can provide a valid, citable source speculating (or stating) that Rose is part of the season 4 arc, she should not be mentioned.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Series 4; the reducing number of bees has been mentioned in pretty much every episode as far as I can remember. Surely this can be considered an arc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

...or a running gag. We won't know for sure until the series has played out...or until someone mentions it officially. DonQuixote (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they're throwing phantom arc words at us to throw us off. Can't say whether bees is one of them or not. Pretty brilliant if you ask me. The only thing that would make it better is if at the end the Dr. goes through things that he thinks are part of the arc and someone tells him they're not... somehting like

Doctor "What about the Bees?"
Response (let's pretend it's Davros)
Davros: "Bees! What are you talking about. They have nothing to do with this!"
Doctor "What about (something else mentioned through the season)?"
Davros: "Cease your prattle! You go on endlessly about things you just happened to encounter more than once as though they are relevant. You fool Doctor!"
Anyway... the point is that we need to be careful about putting too much up there.... Davies and Co. could be trying to throw us off.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone (and by anyone I mean a citable source) notice the giant Bee in the preview of the Agatha Christie episode.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
One would assume that to be the eponymous Wasp DBD 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK OK. I accept your point about not mentioning everything because we cannot be sure if it's an arc or not, but diminishing bee population was mentioned in The Unicorn and The Wasp as well, meaning it's been mentioned more times than the medusa cascade, and yet the medusa cascade is allowed a mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Medusa Cascade has been specifically mentioned as part of the arc whilst the bees have not. DonQuixote (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can find an artricle form a decent source that specualtes that Bees are part of the arc then you can say... so and so has speculated that Bee's are a part of the story Arc... Bees have been mentioned in episode, sepisdoe, and episode. Otherwise... you can't put it. Sorry to be beauracratic but thems the rules. It's not me you'll have to worry about if you break them... in fact I probably wouldn't even cite or revert you. But I guarantee there's about half a dozen other wikipedians monitoring this page who will.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And, of course, Bees are going missing: [1]. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting my edits?[edit]

I recently added a theory and a few notes on this years arc. Who keeps deleting them? I DID source it as good as I could, I specifically wrote the quotes that supported my theory and yet someone deleted them. And how come you can't see those words "DON'T add any unsourced speculations about this year's arc, because they will be deleted" in the section? Do you even take a look at them before you delete them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Najhoant (talkcontribs) 13:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The information is sourced but the assumptions drawn from it aren't.
Unless you can source someone say "the Medusa Cascade is Season 4's big secret" then it is still speculation.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Series Four Arc[edit]

Obviously "the darkness." References to "the Darkness" whatever it is, date back to Season One of the series revival. That psychic parlour maid who was possessed by the Gelth in The Unquiet Dead said to Rose "You've seen the darkness" and in Season Two, a Toclafane says to the Master "the Darkness is coming Master, the Great Darkness, we have to run and run and run" and in a trailer for Season Four which was on television earlier this week, Rose said to Donna "It's coming Donna, from beyond the stars" to which Donna responded "What is?" exasperatedly. Rose replies "the Darkness." Slightly ORish, I know but do you think it warrants a mention? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

and also on torchwood people keep saying "the darkness" whenever they are asked what death is like Sexy Sea Bassist 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I forgot to mention that. People on Torchwood keep making references to "something moving in the darkness." I at first assumed it was Abaddon, the creature that was released from The Rift at the end of Season 1 but there have been references to it even since then. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a case to be made for planets being "gone" (as the Adipose' and the Pyroviles' did), especially given the title of episode 12. The "bees disappearing" is a repeated theme. The return of Rose is definitely a story arc (a very obvious one, I'm surprised it isn't listed); the two cameo appearances, "she is returning", etc. building to a well-publicised three-episode appearance.MultipleTom (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Partners in Crime- Medusa Cascade[edit]

This article says that the Medusa Cascade is mentioned in "Partners in Crime" Was it? I can't remember it. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 08:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just rewatched it the other night and it wasn't in there, not that I picked up anyway. Removed. Tphi (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Shadow Proclamation[edit]

I've added a couple of lines about the Shadow Proclamation, which is confirmed as being prevalent in the finale by the sourced BBC Press Office synopsis of The Stolen Earth. I've also included the sourced episodes in which it has been referenced thus far in the series, just like the Medusa Cascade has. Please comment here first if you do feel a burning desire to revert Tphi (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Donna's timeline[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned about Donna's timeline being different. I don't know where it starts, but it's mentioned in Turn Left by both Rose and The Doctor. It also covers a major plot point in the finale, so it must be worth a mention. (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack's immortality (Bad Wolf section)[edit]

The text of the article suggests that Rose may have known she was making Jack immortal. IIRC, in the episode Utopia the Doctor suggests otherwise, but in the episode Journey's End we see clearly that she did not, as she thinks Jack has died when shot by a Dalek. I have amended that sentence. Fish. (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Suffused with the vortex, Rose knew everything. In Torchwood "End of Days", Jack does say "Maybe this is the reason I can't die, maybe everything been leading to this!". So the thought is that perhaps Jack's immortality was a preferable result for one reason or another. It's all speculation, and not encyclopaedic, but saying Rose doesn'tt know now doesn't mean Rose didn't know then.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation of darlig ulv stranden[edit]

Now, there must be a reason they ended up landing on a beach in norway of all places. When I heard the name spoken out loud, I first thought it was "Darlek Ulf Stranden" and that's the root of why I've done an internet search on it ending up here. Is that the correct way of saying it, with it being a contrived (but cool) little in-joke (...and maybe even the reason for using the "bad wolf" phraseology in the first place, if russel or someone else on the team knew a bit of norwegian and realised this), or are my ears playing up? (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC) -In norwegian, the phrase Darlig ulv stranden is pronounced fonteticaly in english as DOOR-LEAGUE (U as in yoU)-l-v str-AND THEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Element of the Series Four Arc?[edit]

I know this is almost surely original research but I thought it might be worth mentioning. Could another element of Series Four's cumulative arc be something along the lines of "taking someone else's voice"? It happened in Midnight when the creature (whatever it's called) that possesses Sky Silvestry uses words and phrases that The Doctor usually says. Then later, in Journey's End, The Doctor "takes" Donna's voice in a way (saying things like "You are kidding me, no way") and Donna "takes" The Doctor's voice, saying things like "molto bene." Does this seem relevant to anyone else? Digger3000 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lonely God[edit]

"Lonely God" redirects here but there is no content for it here, or reference on the talk page. Wassup? Mezigue (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking in the history, that was a former arc on this page [2]. (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cartnell masterplan as an arc?[edit]

Is "The Cartmel Masterplan" really an arc? Watch the DVD documentary on Survival about the end of the series. He clearly states that there was no intention to sit down and write The Cartmel Masterplan, and also states that he wan't aware there WAS such a thing till after the show ended. (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The main part of this page should really only be used for pre-planned arcs, with anything else falling under the 'other arcs' section. Someone put up a solid defence of the Entropy arc, and that was clearly a conscious effort on the part of Chris Bidmead, but Cartmel didn't construct his story-arc in the same way, adding to it ad-hoc as it developed. (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It's been moved. DonQuixote (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Returning Tegan Home?[edit]

Someone's just winding us up now- in what sense does a minor reference to returning Tegan home at the start of a few adventures constitute an arc. If the Nerva stories don't appear here, and people have argued well for them being discluded, I can't see how Tegan's return actually deserves even a place in the 'other arcs' section. (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's not really a "story arc". (Wish people would look up "story arc" in a dictionary before adding things.) DonQuixote (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

he will knock 4 times[edit]

is that an arc planet of dead waters of mars end of time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a recurring theme not a story arc. I echo DonQuixote's words above. Please learn what a story arc is. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
oh shut up please learn how to talk to ppl with out trying to insult them —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is not a single insult in the answer to the question. You might want to learn how to sign your talk page entries per wikipolicy along with learning what a story arc is. MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
stop harrasing me your troll i havnt done anything to you!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

River Song[edit]

I suppose eventually we'll have to classify her episodes as a story arc. Would that belong under "Other Arcs" or should it get its own section? (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems quite similar to the Face of Boe trilogy, at least at the moment. AnemoneProjectors 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I had added this, someone removed it, and I put it back. I think it qualifies as a story arc currently, because the central character in the series is the Doctor, and she is presently (in his timeline) only a recurring player. If and when she becomes a companion (or more), and their timelines merge, then she changes from "story arc" to "character arc", IMO. Thoughts? EJSawyer (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you're making a judgement call on something a lot greyer than you're making it out to be. What separates a character arc from a story arc, anyway? A much more straightforward line needs to be drawn. I'm not sure the "Face of Boe" stories are an arc, for example; actually, they'e just three related stories. A story arc normally informs an entire span of a serial medium - for example, "Dark Phoenix Saga" is a story arc, or "Who killed Lily Kane?", or "Will Olivia escape the parallel world?". How, say, does "Forest of the Dead" impact our viewing of "Midnight" or of "Turn Left" or "Amy's Choice"? Do River's actions in "The Big Bang" linger on in "A Christmas Carol"? The arc - because yes, there is a story, that's clear enough - is only with respect to the character of River Song. Whether or not she is destined to or not to become a "companion" (objectively for these purposes an arbitrary distinction to consider) does not effect that; she is clearly notable enough as a character to have her own Wikipedia page. It is all the more likely that if there is an arc to which the upcoming, revelatory River Song episodes belong, it is the "Silence" arc; the prior hints as to River's future are in all probability dramatic foreshadowing. But even that is neither here nor there. The fact that we are getting to know a character slowly, over sporadic appearances, and the fact that it is narrative-heavy and kind of cool, does not necessarily mean that it is a Doctor Who story arc in a classic sense.
The main problem, as I see it, is not the desire to include River Song. "Story arc" is so broad a term that we could definitely, if left the way we were, make the case for "The parallel world", the "Daleks on the verge of extinction", the "Harriet Jones arc", etc. as story arcs, or extrapolate as many strands of ongoing plot into "arcs" as we like. Do all the appearances of "The Trickster" in Sarah Jane, over which we learn more about him, constitute a "Trickster arc"? Of course not. It's just the nature of serialised fiction. The title of the page ought to be changed to something much more restrictive, to refer to, essentially, conventional seasonal narrative arcs. (And not simply conceptually inter-related episodes.)~ZytheTalk to me! 13:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote Saxon[edit]

The first time I remember seeing a 'Vote Saxon' sign is in the Torchwood episode 'Captain Jack Harkness'. Can anyone comfirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


I have removed elements from the Medusa Cascade section that are not actually cloning at all. Jenny was created from haploids that were extracted from a diploid from the Doctor, which were then modified and recombined; that is not cloning, as the result is not genetically identical. Also, it is not stated in canon that the Adipose are clones, and their similar appearance to each other is more to do with the software used for the special effects than their being 'clones'.

More broadly, unless there is a reliable source indicating any actual intended 'cloning motif' in the season, the entire paragraph should probably be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not an issue of RS from creators, but from reviewers. Feel free to remove it, but from a literary perspective, that was the season's consistent motif.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

NASA picture removed[edit]

I removed a couple of sentences from this article that observed how a picture of a nebula taken by NASA resembles the 'crack in time' from the recent series. Amusing though that is, it's not exactly relevant information to this page. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, it lent Real World Information to a page that could be justifiably deleted.Zythe (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Clara Oswin Oswald[edit]

The mistery around the different incarnations of Clara Oswin Oswald and her identity, should it be considered a story arc? Xelaxa (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Too early to tell. The first ep post-holiday special may resolve that issue quickly, making it a non-arc. There's clearly no common theme yet that we can state without engaging original research. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually I disagree. The same or same-ish character dying twice is definitely notable, and it's not that hard to avoid OR: you just don't do it! Plus Moffat has hyped the character's origin as a major deal. I don't see that it's difficult to just stick to the plot bits. On the other hand it is true that there is no rush. Mezigue (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't realize Moffat's alluded to her story being significant. That said, it would be better to get an episode or two in to know which way this might be going. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


The E-Space trilogy is well-established but is not given its own section here. I don't see that there was a theme about entropy running throughout season 18. The first two stories don't seem to be tied to the rest at all. Can the section explain how each story is related to entropy?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


This article's out of hand, isn't it? What's a story arc and what isn't, for the purposes of this article? Every character arc is a story arc; every ongoing theme is potentially an arc; every plot which is followed up in another episode possibly constitutes an arc. Are there sources we can use to tighten our definition? I suspect not, and I'm wondering if it should be sent to AFD.Zythe (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

... of the Doctor?[edit]

Shouldn't the final arc be called "... of the Doctor", because of the of the Doctor Trilogy "The Name of the Doctor", "The Day of the Doctor", "The Time of the Doctor". Only the Day of the Doctor was directly related to the Time war, while Name of the Doctor only referenced it. Each of these episodes all contain Doctor exclusive revelations, and I feel the Arc should be respectively titled as such. Snowy66 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem with this article. We can't make up titles or declare arcs ourselves; Wikipedia can only report what secondary sources say.Zythe (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Dismantling this article[edit]

Unfortunately, the way this article has grown, a lot of original research has come about in what consistitutes a "story arc", to the point that this article is not really helping much. There are certainly affirmed articles - Key to Time, Trial, "Bad Wolf", etc. but some of the others, like the so called "Master" arc is really weak.

The idea was discussed on the main Wikiproject page for Doctor Who, but I am going to formally propose to break this article apart and eventually delete it (or at least with necessary redirects). For the real arcs, those can be pushed to summary information on the various season or series pages (so there would be a series summary that discusses "Bad Wolf" on the Series 1 article, for example). This would remove the looser arcs that are currently original research. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree. Especially with the Classic series, it can become quite blurry as to what's a proper arc and what's just a group of episodes linked with continuity. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be full of WP:OR and very few references. Is there a ref to back up "Failing to Reach UNIT HQ" for example? Where has this title even been mentioned? I've never heard of it. I think AfD is the next step.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I came to this article for the first time today and I was dumbfounded. The talk page alone is one long demand for fancruft. Here's a clue that what you're dealing with is not admissible: there are no reliable sources to the proposed story arc being a story arc anywhere (fan sites, fan magazines, are not RS). In other words, if you have to "figure out" whether something is a story arc or not, you are engaging in OR to do so and you should not be including it--you're making it up, as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, and that is not what we are here to do. By this definition there are very few true story arcs in the original series, and you might even debate whether the most obvious one qualifies, namely The Trial of a Time Lord, which, though each "part" had individual titles for individual stories within the longer arc, that longer arc also had a continuous narrative--so it was one story in 14 parts, not an arc of self-contained stories. I second the nomination for eventual deletion (my emotional inhibitor is on). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to restart this discussion, seeing every tiny possible thread of a story arc as being relevant. At minimum, we need secondary sources (or at least something from BBC's websites on Doctor Who to confirm that it was a production design about the arc if secondary sources don't pick up on it). We're putting elements that are more recurring characters as story arcs when they are just recurring characters (like River Song or Cult of Skaro). Unless there's major objections, I'm going to start by removing any arc that is not sourced or sourced only to the primary work. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

How's that going so far? I see an awful lot of "arcs" in the new series section with no sources whatsoever. The Time War has got to be the worst one. Whoever keeps adding this stuff: an "arc" is not a recurring theme, phrase, character, idea, or whatever else you seem to think it is, or else you could argue the entire new series is an "arc" called The Time War, which almost seems to be what the paragraph is conveying. An arc is at least a set of stories which are bridged by continuous narrative events. Given that The Time War itself is merely referred to, not shown, until "The Day of the Doctor", how can you possibly turn this into an arc? Which stories are part of it? Where are the sources for you to even call it by this title? Why aren't the three stories which at least feature a common bridging title phrase "--of the Doctor" not considered to be an arc instead? Is Time of the Doctor part of the so-called Cracks in the universe arc? Does that arc really exist? Who calls it that? Where's the reference? Are they competing arcs? The point is, in the new series, we seem to be arbitrarily deciding what constitutes an arc, second guessing the scriptwriters, executive producers, etc., and imposing our OR (by imposing titles, to start with) on to the show over and over again. Someone, one of these fine days, needs to be very bold inded and just kill most of this article. Kill it and burn it, not bury it. As it stands, it doesn't just make Wikipedia look bad, it makes us (fans who also happen to be editors) look like obssessed little divs who shouldn't be taken seriously by "real" editors. It won't be done by me though, not tonight. Yes, I know, go do it yourself. But it's a huge cut that need to be done, and I think everyone is afraid of the fancruft monster reaction. Besides, I am far, far too tired and don't trust my judgement. Sorry for the rant folks. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I also came to the conclusion some time back that this page is unsalvageable - as are most of these arbitrary lists related to popular fiction. Mezigue (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
It's embarrassing. I don't even see it's all that relevant anyway, this is an encyclopaedia after all. The talk page has gotten so bad (see Season 9 discussion below) that I'm going to disassociate myself from all Doctor Who articles in the future.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Excluding the Time War and perhaps the last section, am I right that all the arcs otherwise given are pretty much self-sustained to one season/series of the show? Because as I've mentioned above if they pretty much are, then the arc aspects can be alluded to on the individual season/series pages. (For example, for the revived season 1, on that page, "Throughout this season, the Doctor and Rose encounter the words "Bad Wolf" which is revealed to have been put there by Rose while infused with the time vortex at the end of (last episode) to help guide the two towards this moment in time." (or something like that). Since the season/series pages also have brief episode synopsis, the importance of the arc will be readily apparent there. The only ones that I don't think would "survive" this is the Fenric one (weak already) and the Earth Exile (though this can be noted on all 3 seasons it applies to); the Cartmel MP and River Song already have separate articles. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
In other words, as I was trying to say, they are not arcs in the first place and never were; they are themes, recurring characters, hints at sub-plots, recurring phrases, etc., not stories making up a larger well-defined story in a continuous narrative (and referenced as such by the show!) all of which can, as you rightly say, be alluded to in series pages, contintuity sections etc. The biggest problem on this page, apart from not recognzing when editors engage in OR, is that most of the people producing all this OR don't actually grasp what an arc is in the first place. Some people are even saying the "arc" doesn't have to appear in every episode of the "arc", leading me to ask how they are defining the word "arc". Sounds like a theme, phrase, character, idea, meme, etc., etc., not an arc. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe it. It's there in black and white: "References to these arcs have since been made in both Doctor Who and its spin-offs such as Torchwood. Early seasons would feature story arcs that made up extended serials such as The Trial of a Time Lord but also loose umbrella titles such as The Key to Time. The new series has continued this trend with the introduction of "arc words" that are recognisable to the larger viewing audience such as "Bad Wolf", "Torchwood" and "Mr. Saxon", which also constitute the story arcs for individual seasons." None of this referenced or borne out by a source. Yet it is, apparently, the guiding principle of the article: the show is having a little game with the audience (editors) giving us "clues" which we then go on to figure out because we're so clever and present it here on Wikipedia, just like on a fan page. This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Enough is enough. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I do see references to "arc words" in relation to the new series in RSes. That's probably why this page adopted that term. It's not wrong, but I am agreeing we don't need a separate page for that. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The existence of something called an "arc word" in RSes (I was not aware of this, and cannot be bothered reading the entire talk page to see what this refers to, could you give us a precis of that?) does not justify the level of fancruft here. I have a feeling it's like the so-called mythology episodes versus regular episodes on X-Files... the stories which were mythology followed definite progressions, but none of the episodes in between were related. In any case, none of the sections in this article ought to be allowed to stand with ZERO references. So I've done what many have wanted to do for a long time and simply cut the lot. I will be overjoyed to see anything restored but it has to be done properly and with references.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Watch a series of it and then complain. the "story arcs" are shoved in your face. then we will talk about fixing the pageUser: Connor Hamish —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You clearly haven't actually read the discussion. "Then we'll talk". It happened four months ago, after quite a lot of fretting by reluctant editors for years before that. Read the stamps. So we don't know what we're on about, but you do, and you literally have no idea what the discussion was about. Well, welcome, sir. FYI, I have watched just about every still-existing episode of Doctor Who, the old and new series--twice in the case of the original series. I've been a fan for over 30 years. That irrelevant information aside, do you have an actual point? Wikipedia requires references. Story arcs as they were presented in the new series part of the article (worst e.g., "The Time War") were either being made up on the fly by editors or guessed at. They may well be in your face as far you are concerned but here they need to be referenced. I don't know if you were here all those months ago, but there were two whole pages of cruft here, none of it referenced. Not one RS. No-one wants to do the work to find them, or else they don't exist. Either way, it's gone and stays gone till that changes. That's policy. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
They are all official arcs, there is no reason to remove them. It is just damaging the article, reducing its merit. The information was sourced. There is no discussion to be had here. Fan4Life (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Go back and read the discussion and look at the article itself. None of what you brought back was sourced. And you have gone against consensus.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC) I see we need to start a new section.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

S8 /Missy[edit]

We only have one episode, and no official sources saying that there is an arc (or even if there is an arc for the season). The supposition is similar to saying there's an arc from the end of "Amy's Choice" just because the Doctor sees that reflection in the control panel (which you'll notice hasn't come up again). Now, 99% sure that it will be the arc, but from a WP standpoint, it's a crystal ball to make that assumption now, and thus we should wait until at least the next episode if that will be validated. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I've been looking at the revision history of this page. The 'cracks' arc in series 5 first became apparent after the second episode. Now that Missy and the 'heaven' have appeared again in the second episode of series 8 (and we know that the last episode will be called "Death in Heaven") I think it's safe to add a mention of this to the page. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Series 9 story arc[edit]

Steven Moffat has stated their is a story arc for Series 9 [3], but, as of 11th October 2015, it is unclear what it is. One possibility, however, is the story arc centres round the 'Minister of War', a battle that Alice O'Donnell stated in Before the Flood as one of the old Doctor's battles, that he fought in between 1980 and 2119, among other already seen battles. If you have any suggestions, based on things stated or shown in any Doctor Who series 9 episode, of what the story arc is, please state it on this section of this talk page. Also, only state information given that could be followed up in future episodes. Thank you in advance. Theoosmond (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

At this point, since no reliable source has mentioned what it is, anything (including the above) is speculation. Speculation and original research is against policy. We need to wait for the sources (primary and secondary) to reveal what the arc is. DonQuixote (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is speculation, but if there is a recurring theme like in previous series mentioned or seen, that will be the story arc. The purpose of this section of the talk page is so the editors know what to look out for in future episodes so they can be sure what the story arc is in a few weeks or so. For example, if there are multiple mentions of the Minister of War, the editors know that the Minister of War is the story arc and can put it on the main article, as this will be reliable enough to put on the main article. And, of course, if two or more sources are found stating what the story arc is, the editors can put that on main article. Theoosmond (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, if a suggestion is put forward, it will be checked, and if it is a load of drivel, it will be visibly pointed out.Theoosmond (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I also reckon that there should be at least 3 mentions of any given phrase or other forms of telling a story arc AT LEAST before putting any story arc referring to series 9, so the editors can reliably put the series 9 story arc on the main article. And, of course, if reliable sources states what the arc is, that will be out on the article.Theoosmond (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
What you reckon is irrelevant. If you can't support it with a reliable source, then it can't be verified (three mentions or no). DonQuixote (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think your request has been made in good faith and is well-intentioned, Theoosmond, but it's premature and, quite possibly, unnecessary. If there is a Season 9 story arc it will be revealed in good time. If that happens then, as has occurred in the past, we can expect reliable, verifiable sources to commence commenting on the fact in fairly short order. In all probability this will include the BBC itself and publications such as Doctor Who Magazine, to name but two. As soon as that happens, we will then be treated to the spectacle of multiple editors falling over each other to get the information into the article, whereupon it will be tweaked and polished to make it as good as it can get. That's the Wikipedia way. Fear not, the chances of a story arc slipping by without hordes of us noticing (myself include) are indistinguishable from zero. Just be patient. Bowdenford (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The Hybrid may be the arc, this is supported by Radio Times.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Even then, they are grabbing for straws if that is really an arc. This is nowhere as clear as Mr. Saxon or Cracks in the universe were and more like Bad Wolf - that most didn't see it until it was late in the season. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Bowdenford, there is definetly a story arc for Series 9, and you can see the quotation if you click on the [3] in the first sentence of this section of the talk page.Theoosmond (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the best source in typing up Doctor Who articles is the program itself, so we can use the program to work out the story arc legitimaly. I understand that the arc will be revealed by the BBC before too long.Theoosmond (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
From WP:SECONDARY: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. DonQuixote (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If you look at any page about a Doctor episode, you will find the plot is seemingly unsourced. This proves one can get reliable information from the program, and therefore one can use the program alone to work out what the story arc is.Theoosmond (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
As long as the plot summary makes no interpretations and only summarizes the episode, it can be unsourced with implication that the primary work is the source. Identifying a arc that has not been explicitly called out in the show is interpretation. EG the point in Series 1 where the Doctor recounts how Bad Wolf has appeared in all travels lets us use the primary work as the source for the arc, but not before. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate what Masem said, you can summarise sources, including primary sources, but you can't "use the program alone to work out what the story arc is" because "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (emphasis mine) DonQuixote (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking that maybe the story arc is made up of seemingly unrelated things that will only come together in the finale, so no one will be able to even get a clue over what the story arc is for about another five or six weeks. This is just a theory which comes from the fact that no obvious story arc has been mentioned six weeks into the program and Steven Moffat stating that he doesn't expect anyone to see episode eleven's cliffhanger coming. If this is true, the BBC won't probably reveal the story arc. And to reiterate, THIS IS JUST A THEORY.Theoosmond (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It might very well be that, just as Bad Wolf was, and after which it becomes clear there was meant to be an arc, we can add it then. We just really can't guess when it is not clear presently. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Cultbox has also stated that the Hybrid is the arc.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Cultbox is speculating that Hybrid is the arc. They have no source to back up their claim. DonQuixote (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Still the Hybrid would be worth looking into, since two sources are mentioning it. However, it is not definitely the story arc, so it is not going on the article unless we realise it is the arc with reliable sources that aren't speculating.Theoosmond (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
There was another Hybrid reference in "The Zygon Invasion", this is the third reference, it can't possibly be a red herring. (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The Hybrid seems like it might be the story arc, but it is still not 100% certain, and things can only go on the article if the editors can be 100% certain it is a story arc. We have to wait until a source either from the BBC or a source sourced by the BBC explicitly states what the story arc is, or if this does not happen, we will have to wait until the finale to work out with certainty what the story arc is from what mystery the show a resolving. I know it doesn't sound like a red herring, but I'm afraid no one can be 100% sure what the story arc is at the moment.Theoosmond (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the finale preview in DWM #493[6], the Hybrid is indeed the arc. (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems the Hybrid is the story arc. But, before this goes on the main article, there must be no disagreement among editors over what the story arc is. So, if you disagree that the hybrid is the arc, state it here. Thanks.Theoosmond (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Could I have a list of all the mentions in Doctor Who about the Hybrid in Series 9, please? There may be a mention in the series 8 finale at some point (I seem to remember Steven Moffat saying something about this, may be a false memory). If this is true, could I have that on the list as well? Thanks.Theoosmond (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Why do we need no disagreement among editors when a reliable source confirms the arc is the Hybrid? The opinions of other editors are irrelevant unless they can provide a more reliable source than we have to back up their opinion. (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP is not a crystal ball. Personally, I fully agree with the RSes that the hybrid is the theme of this season, but that's all massive speculation and leaves open some questions (like how does Under the Lake/Before the Flood fit in? It may not at the end of things). Catching that the hybrid term has come up in other episodes is presently properly being tracked in the continuity sections of the episodes, but until we know exactly how to write about this arc, we need to avoid speculation even if it is coming from RSes. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@ I meant by that was if the editors didn't think the source was reliable, they should publically state it.@Masem:The story arc does not have to be mentioned in every single story eg. in Rose, there was no mention of the Bad Wolf arc, no mention of Torchwood in The Girl in the Fireplace and in quite a few episodes of series 3, there were no mentions of Mr Saxon. The Hybrid seems to be the arc for series 9, according to sources that are reliable. Also, there may be a mention of the Hybrid in Under the Lake/Before the Flood, but not an explicit one eg. although this is complete specualtion, the War Minister could be an alternate name for the Hybrid or something. Anyway, your comment was the kind of comment I was wary of, and I understand you don't think we have enough resources to say the Hybrid is the story arc and you're comment is valuable and I agree that we should not write anything about the Hybrid on the main page yet.Theoosmond (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The list of mentions of the Hybrid I am aware of are 1)Davros says in The Witch's Familiar 'There was a prophecy, Doctor, on your own world. It spoke of a hybrid creature. Two great warrior races forced together to create a warrior greater than either'2)In The Girl Who Died, after making Ashildr immortal with the Mire's med pack, the Doctor states she is now a human and Mire Hybrid. Ashildr reappears in The Woman Who Lived and 3)The Doctor describes Osgood as a Hybrid of humanity and Zygons in The Zygon Invasion. If you know of any more, put them on this talk page. Thanks.Theoosmond (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
True, it doesn't have to be in every episode, but I'm still concerned that saying that the arc is "hybrid" is a bit of a jump. It is very much like "Bad Wolf" prior to the episode of that name; it came up but until it was actually called out by the Doctor as a phrase following them around, it would have been speculation to try to connect. As we're only a few episodes away from the finale, we should just wait until the arc (if there is one) is revealed. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you are concerned that putting 'Hybrid' on the article now is too early and is speculation, that's OK and I won't put it on the main article, until the finale or if a scene similar to the one in Boom Town is shown, unless there is pressure to put it on the article. Thank you for your comments.Theoosmond (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
We do not need to wait until the finale, we are not speculating, a reliable source has more or less confirmed that the Hybrid is the arc, the synopsis for "Hell Bent" states: "Who is the Hybrid? And what is the Doctor’s confession?". (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@, we haven't a clue how to write a section on this since we don't know all the infomation what the Hybrid is. We don't have a clue what the Hybrid is, and there hasn't been a scene like the one in 'Boom Town'. Wait until the finale, then make a section.Theoosmond (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Could we wait until next week to write up the section about the story arc, to ensure we have all the infomation we might need. We can however be certain 'The Hybrid' is the story arc, after the events of Heaven Sent.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 23:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree here: having just seen Heaven Sent, I don't know how we can writing about the "arc" with as little as we know now. It's still not even clear if every other mention of "hybrid" is significant yet to it. --MASEM (t) 06:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To restate this: even with what the Doctor's last few lines were in "Heaven Sent", it is nearly impossible to write what the arc will be for S9, outside of it being the "Hybrid". The Doctor's last line in "Heaven Sent" is vague with many possible meanings, so to try to extrapolate off that is not really wise right now. We are in no rush, and certain the answers will come from Hell Bent, from which we can then have a clear, non-OR picture of what we've been seeing come to pass (perhaps with things we didn't even notice on first viewing). --MASEM (t) 00:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dismantling this Article Redux[edit]

For the last time. Nothing in the article from the revived series section--none of it--was sourced, never mind 'official'. It was entirely original research. Per policy, we don't do that. That's why all of it was removed. There was consensus (myself, User:DonQuixote, User:Masem, User:Mezigue to name four) when we did that, and the consensus stands. @User:Fan4Life:Do not go against consensus and reinstate it. If you truly believe all of it has to come back, start a discussion here, present your arguments for, and see where it gets you. Do not revert without consensus again. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, someone has started an "other arcs" section, i.e., for character arcs, etc. Which is odd, considering this is an article explicitly about story arcs. If we let that can of worms stay opened, the article will once again grow completely out of control. Also, the original series' arc plots are growing. Maybe it's time we just deleted this thing. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Deleted it today. The one reference t was the period of the Earth exile in an article on Doctor Who and the Silurians.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I supported dismantling the article rather than sticking to old story arcs. I think it would be better to turn it into simply a list of links to the relevant seasons or something like that, i.e. help readers find their way around the Doctor Who project rather than rehash plotlines already summarised elsewhere. I found this page years ago in the first place because "Lonely God" redirected here but there is no mention of it. I wonder if there are other redirect links coming here? Mezigue (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I support that, and had rather hoped that after the initial fanboy reaction died down after losing all the unsourced stuff, we'd be headed somewhere like that. If it's not done as a simple list, people will just keep expanding any plot summaries they find to the point where the thing becomes a god-awful mess, kind of like the largely plot-rehashes/synthesis speculations over at Time Lords, History of the Time Lords and articles like that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
In reply to Mezigue: I found my way here via "Cracks in the Universe" links in the pages for The Padorica Opens and Cold Blood pages. No doubt there are other links. TeWaitere (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Fan4Life reverted the entire thing for a second, third, and I have lost count of how many times. (It was quickly restored to its current state each time by others, thankfully.) Fan4Life has not sought consensus, nor explained the action, calling our actions of removing unsourced original research "vandalism" and maintaining it was all "official" story arcs in the original revert (for which evidence is yet to be provided), and all of this in spite of being explicitly told here on the talk page not to do this again against consensus, to first provide an argument, evidence, etc. This is the definition of disruptive editing, particularly in the light of past behaviour, from which it appears little has been learnt by this editor. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)