Talk:The Waters of Mars

Episode length

The episode is actually 62 minutes long, it started at 6.58pm and finished at 8.01pm so 63 minutes including a short trailer and cast runthrough will make it 62 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.133.155 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Airdate

The airdate for this special needs changing and, more imporantly, the title of this article. According to Russel T. Davies in the new issue of DWM, the plan has changed and 4.16 won't be aired at christmas, but sometime before. Also, if anyone's interested, he also says the final letter of the script for 4.18 is 'N.' :P --78.149.50.71 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The airdate is either the 7th or 14th of November.80.0.212.168 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to air on Saturday. It just probably, but not certainly, will. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No hurry to fill this bit anyway, it's basically unimportant. When BBC tell us we can put it in. magnius (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

Per discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#The Waters of Mars?, this title seems to be fairly well sourced. Also, per Russell T. Davies on the BBC this morning, the current plan is for this story to air "November-ish", so whatever the title, "2009 Christmas special" is definitely wrong. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Eleventh Doctor (talk · contribs) has removed the title with the edit summary "(and 4.12 was rumoured to be "War on skaro" - look how accurate that turned out to be.)" Was "War on Skaro" ever reported in print, or was that just something that was floating around the web? We just have to decide whether Total TV Guide is a reliable source or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"War on Skaro" was only ever reported on Play.com - so not a reliable source. Per my comments at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials, I think that this title should be used as the title of the article. That would also help save this article from deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well be fair - "rumoured title"? is wikipedia a place for rumour and speculation? If you're going to take the source as reliable, then have it as the article title - if not, then why mention it at all? Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

< I agree, I also want it as the article title, as does Edokter, as does Josiah Rowe. But Ckatz doesn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, how did that magazine get the title? According to DWM, the title will be revealed at the end of Planet of the dead - and I doubt the production team would leek it before that. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's completely unheard of. :P ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Total TV Guide can be considered a reliable source; it states the title as fact, while the 'rumours' are labelled as such. So we should defenitely move it back. — Edokter • Talk • 20:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking again at the magazine, it does seem quite sure of it. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - here's what needs doing for the move (I can't myself now, I don't have time!): change wording in article, on Planet of the Dead, on List of Doctor Who serials and on Template:Doctor Who (2009 specials) at the bottom. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As per what I've just written at the other discussion, the Totally TV article is wrong about the "trilogy" structure (saying it is one, as compared to Davies' comments in SFX Magazine), and also wrong about the airdate (Christmas vs. Davies' "November-ish"). So, are we now selectively choosing what parts of their lead we consider accurate? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True, they've exaggurated/misinterpreted some ambiguous things that no-one's still quite sure about. You can't exaggurate "The Waters of Mars". ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the autumn special will be linked to the Christmas two-parter in much the same way that "Utopia" was linked to "The Sound of Drums"/"Last of the Time Lords". Davies considers those three episodes to be a one-parter and a two-parter, but other sources consider them a single three-part story.

If it weren't for the AfD, I'd move the article now — but I wonder whether that would interfere with the AfD process.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to move - just WP:BOLD. The direction the AfD is taking is very clear now, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, just to review this matter - we have:

• a TV guide-type magazine that lists a title for a show eight months away in a "Rumours" column;
• said title, while presented in the article intro as if fact, is mixed in with other items that we know are incorrect (per the show's producer);
• no other confirmation of the title, including nothing from either the BBC or Davies;
• an apparent urgent need to get this up first, before the first special even airs (and not even knowing if that episode will list the title).

Am I missing anything? Come on, why are we in such a rush? Would this really be accepted if the article said "starring the Master" (i.e. a plot point) instead of "The Waters of Mars"? I know you all mean well, but this feels as if we are grasping at straws in a race to be the first, rather than the best. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We strive neither to be the best or the first; we simply use the information at hand from reliable sources. We shouldn't even care if it is true, as long as it is verifiable. If it turns out to be incorrect, it can always be changed. — Edokter • Talk • 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"We strive neither to be the best..." and "We shouldn't even care if it is true"?!? Edokter, I'm really surprised to see that coming from as experienced an editor as you. I've always understood the verifiability policy to be about "true material that can be verified", not "verifiable material that may or may not be true". Look, this whole thing is crazy - why is it that we are prepared to accept that the magazine got the title right, when in the same paragraph they have made other errors? Why is the presumption that it is implausible to make a mistake with respect to a title, but plausible to make a mistake with scheduling? (Note that I'm not arguing that the title is or isn't "The Waters of Mars", only that we should get better sources before we commit to it.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But the title 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) is definitely wrong — we have unarguably reliable sources indicating this will air before Christmas. Isn't it better to use a title which is used by a source and not contradicted by any other than to use a title which reliable sources tell us is wrong? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear - I'm not arguing we have to keep it at "2009 Christmas special", only that we need better references before we can consider moving it to "The Waters of Mars". --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what title would you prefer? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Second special (Doctor Who) exists and could be used. If not it needs deleting. Edgepedia (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the most neutral suggestion we have so far and we can easily move it to the correct title on 11 April. SoWhy 06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread me. The top of WP:V says "Verifiability, not truth"; hence why I said we should not care about the truth over the verifiability of the title. — Edokter • Talk • 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

< Ckatz, your first bullet above shows that you still miss the point. The article is not a "rumours column" - it is designed to highlight the gaps between rumours and reality. If the overall title had been Wheat and Chaff or something that didn't contain the word "rumour" but the content, including the headings "rumour" and "confirmed" remained the same, I don't think we'd be having this argument. The title is misleading, but it is not a rumour-column. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"2009 Second special (Doctor Who) exists and could be used. If not it needs deleting. Edgepedia (talk) 7:06 am, Today (UTC+1)

I think that's the most neutral suggestion we have so far and we can easily move it to the correct title on 11 April. SoWhy 7:10 am, Today (UTC+1)"

I completly agree with these two statements, at the moment the only "relible" source we got is from a tv guide who wrote a few things that seems to contridict a few things Davies has said and we don't know how they got the title. The best thing to do is just keep the page at 2009 Second special (Doctor Who) untill we see if the title appears at the end of saturdays episode then we move it there if correct and for now this debate is not needed. No rush needed three days to go. Pro66 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving articles when the Afd is open can cause problems so I've suggested that the article is move-protected. Alternatively, I've suggested that the nominator withdraw the Afd and move this article to 2009 Second special (Doctor Who). Edgepedia (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I left Sceptre a talk page message about it. I think if he agrees, we can at least remove one concern that was raised here. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I must ask why move to "Second special" when the title is known and properly sourced? — Edokter • Talk • 12:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Again is about the source in question as it been discussed above, its best to wait to see if Planet of the Dead backs up the lone source in its credits. Untill then i think is best to have it as the 2009 Second special (Doctor Who) coz at the end of the day that what it is, the second special of 2009. Pro66 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this and will comment accordingly in the AfD. Just because a source says that its information is factual doesn't necessarily make it reliable (even if it also includes information it says is "rumoured"). Most of the newspaper stories that have revealed things have claimed accuracy, and many have been proven to be wrong. Are we saying that TV Guide necessarily is more reliable than The Sun? Maccy69 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wait until Planet of the Dead airs this weekend, then you'll have your title. What a hullabaloo. Tphi (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In line with consensus and common practice I have removed the title of the episode from the article until it is confirmed by a reliable source rather than one magazine that also contains false information. Common practice is to wait for official confirmation, and that will come after Planet of the Dead. This is only one day away. You can wait until then to put it up, if indeed the suggested title is correct. -Matt-86.174.31.176 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that it is the article title that is being discussed, not the content. In that lite, I have restored the information. — Edokter • Talk • 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Then I welcome your contribution to the discussion below rather than simply reinstating information that is not reliably sourced. --Matt86.174.31.176 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Two more sources

Two more sources have mentioned the title "The Waters of Mars". The first, the Daily Star, may not meet the standards of WP:RS since it's a tabloid; however, the second, from a blog affiliated with Wired, would seem to meet the criterion in this footnote to WP:SPS:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

Do others agree that this is enough to justify moving the article, or should we just wait until tomorrow? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wired blog is getting its info from Den of Geek (it's linked in the article) which, in turn, is using the Total TV Guide article already sourced. The Daily Star doesn't give a source, so it's likely that their source is also Total TV Guide - and even if it isn't, I don't think they're sufficiently reliable to merit changing the article title. It's unfortunate that this article still has the word Christmas in its title, but everything else is clear and well sourced. I say wait until after the transmission (ie 18 hours from when I'm typing this) when we will have a definitive title. It's not long to wait - and as things stand the article works OK. Maccy69 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been keeping an eye on this issue online, and the sources that list "Waters" all seem to trace it back to Totally TV. (Not that it matters for sourcing purposes, but I've also noticed that a number of fan sites are knocking the TTV title as either unlikely or speculative.) All in all, the best bet is to wait it out until we get a proper source, with the caveat that we could certainly move it to "second special" or something similar to remove the "Christmas" reference. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll try to see if I can get an uninvolved admin to close the AfD under WP:SNOWBALL, so that we can move the article without complications (whether it's to The Waters of Mars or to 2009 Second special (Doctor Who)). There's certainly a strong enough consensus there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Name of Episode in Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In line with common practice I have removed the title of the episode from the article until it is confirmed by a reliable source rather than one magazine that also contains false information. Common practice is to wait for official confirmation, and that will come after Planet of the Dead. This is only one day away. You can wait until then to put it up, if indeed the suggested title is correct. Discussion is welcome, so course, though I fail to see why we can't wait just over 24 hours in order to be sure of our accuracy, just as we are with every other Wiki topic. Please refrain from putting in this information before a consensus can be reached or until another, more reliable, source can be provided --Matt86.174.31.176 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is not under dispute, and the information within the article was never contested. I have even reworded it to be less definitive. It is not 'common practice' to remove sourced information, so please do not remove it again. — Edokter • Talk • 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The decision reached about the atricle title was that the information was unreliable as it was featured in an article that included things we know to be untrue. Therefor its veracity IS is dispute, and this dispute was enough to stop the article having its name changed. This shows a distrust of the information, and as such it has no place in an encyclopedia article until it can be RELIABLY sourced, meaning sourced from a source that has not shown itself to be unreliable. Furthermore, I asked you not to place unreliably sourced information into the article wihtout a consensus. You alone do not form a consensus. As such it has (once again) been removed until this can be adequately debated. Better to err on the side of caution that to put errors into an article that can be avoided for sure on Saturday at 6:45. Anybody else have any views on this so that we can reach a consensus rather than just us two going back and forth? If the consensus is I am wrong to be cautious then that is fair enough, but information should not be included before we have reached a common viewpoint. --Matt86.174.31.176 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I also meant to say I appreciate you softening the wording, but no matter how it is phrased, if it is not fact then it is not fact, and we have no reliable sources telling us that it is fact yet, and so no matter how it is worded it has no place here. --Matt86.174.31.176 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring! The discussion above only concerns the article title, not the information contined therein. The source may be under debate, but is considered a reliable source non-the-less. Again, do not remove cited information. — Edokter • Talk • 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For more clarification about why Edokter is correct, please see WP:V -- Maccy69 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V states that 'Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves'. I believe that making provable errors in the same article which is based on rumour qualifies this source as having a poor reputation for fact checking, and as such ought not to be used in isolation. Wat other sources can we use to back it up, as the consensus seems to be to keep the info? If we are to keep it, which I am happy with if that is consensus, how else can we support it to comply with WP:V? --Matt86.174.31.176 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have any "provable errors", the idea of the specials being a trilogy is supported by Russell T Davies' statement that they are linked and the plan was to show all three at Christmas (as stated by Russell T Davies and Gareth Roberts in interviews) and has only recently changed (as reported in Doctor Who Magazine). I think that a listings magazine is mainstream enough to be considered a reliable source and "reported" makes it clear that no official announcement has been made. WP:V makes the point that readers can check the source out for themselves - what you are proposing removes the possibility of their doing this. This is properly sourced information about an upcoming episode, it is not out role to attempt to determine if the information is true or not. Maccy69 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no new info to make the claim comply with WP:V tonight, it seems. Should nothing more be forthcoming tomorrow then it seems the questionable source cannot be backed up with any other sources and, as such, is in breach of the WP:V guidelines and should be removed until another source can be found to verify the information. I really hope we can find something to bring the claim in line with wiki policy since it is clear that you guys are so passionate about it remaining. Fingers crossed somebody will turn up with something to save it! I am glad we have found a way to work around our difference of opinion in a good-natured way. It is nice when the wiki policy pages provide such a clear framework to resolve disputes in! --Matt 86.174.31.176 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You waited a whole 25 minutes there! Honestly, the consensus is against you and I think you'll come up against WP:3RR. I suggest you relax, enjoy "Planet of the Dead" and wait for the official title announcement (at 7.45pm BST tomorrow, in less than 32 hours time) to make this whole argument moot. Maccy69 (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, re: 'You waited a whole 25 minutes there!', please calm your tone. Good faith, remember? I have taken it with you, I expect the same in return. Secondly, whatever happened to debate and discussion in order to come to a mutual understanding of best practice on here? That is how it is supposed to work, but you seem opposed to discussion and your attitude towards debate is rather dogmatic and inflexible. That is not in the spirit of wiki. Compromise is the best policy, which is what I was working towards above before you returned to your dogma of it being your way with no compromise. Consensus does not overrule concerns about wiki policy, such as those that have not been answered about WP:V. Thirdly, the reason I said I would wait 24 hours for new evidence to be presented is because of WP:3RR. Your concerns have not addressed the fact that the supposed reliability of the source you cite is called into question by it giving false information along with what you term to be fact. Until you address that, it still violates WP:V. And finally, to resolve the issue once and for all, I have altered the wording of the piece to make my concerns clear while still including the information you are so keen to keep in despite the obvious problems it raises and despite it clearly violating WP:V. This is a compromise that ought to suit both sides, and I trust will be the end of the matter. I hope that this can put an end to it until the information is announced through a reliable source. In future, though, please be aware that discussion and debate are the correct tools to use on here, not merely repeating your own viewpoint time and time again in the hope that others will merely capitulate without and rational argument. -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"You waited a whole 25 minutes there!" was intended as a humorous aside, sorry if it misfired. If were talking tone, though, the post I was replying to strikes me as being needlessly sarcastic, which was maybe not intended (but that's how its coming across). As for discussion, my comment as supposed to be read in tandem with my previous comment where I argue that the source is not clearly violating WP:V. That's the consensus that I was talking about. The "relax and wait" part was a friendly suggestion, rather than wasting your energy on an argument you aren't going to win, given the time until an official announcement is made. If you want to keep arguing, please do - I wasn't trying to shut you down, just pointing out what's likely to happen. Maccy69 (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You did misunderstand my tone, but then it seems I misunderstood yours too, so let's agree to let those ones fly. It is all well and good saying that there is a consensus that it does not violate WP:V, and if that were true I would be more than happy to say I am outvoted (as I have done with taking the infor out altogether; I am now arguing for a compromise). However, no such consensus exists. Since WP:V was introduced to the debate, only you and I have spoken! A consensus of 1 is not a consensus. As such, your removing my compromise statement was utterly unacceptable as it runs against the policy on reverting without consensus. That states that the status quo stands until consensus is reached. As such, I am reinstating the compromise. Might I suggest that, if the compromise text does not suit you, you suggest something that can go in the article that makes my concenrs clear and also puts in the information you want? That way we can both be happy about what is written. Seriously, neither of us is going to win this outright before the episode shows, and we both have valid concerns, so wouldn't it be a lot easier to just find a text that we are BOTH happy with? Compromise, the spirit of wiki! -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is mentioned in previous discussions on this talk page as well - you are the only person to have suggested removing all mention of the title from the article. I reverted your changes because they go against WP:NPOV and WP:MOS (particularly with regard to consistency) - this is now reflected in my edit descriptions. If you're looking for a compromise wording, I suggest you post it here so it can be discussed. Consensus, though, is not necessarily "meeting in the middle". Maccy69 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm bored

Can I ask you to both stop edit-warring and bickering here, please? It's really dull. Maccy - you're quite right, evaluating a source in an article is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Matt - please stop. But most importantly, the pair of you; you're not going to settle this argument, and I doubt my taking Maccy's side in the content dispute will help. So could you give it a rest, please, no-one's benefiting! People can evaluate the source for themselves, and there's only another day or so in it anyway... just wait patiently. Thanks, and sorry for the rant! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that was my going to be my last comment anyway. Maccy69 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed. I wish you had come in sooner, TreasuryTag, as all I was waiting for, as I made clear, was a consensus on the content, and a compromise in the meantime. Now we have consensus it is clear that the information remains until after the broadcast when it can be confirmed. Sorry if our discussion irritated you; you ought to have let your opinion on the content be known so we could have closed the discussion down. Enjoy the episode, both of you! -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not actually online 24hrs a day... For future reference, the order of operations is edit, revert, discussion - not edit, revert, revert, revert, revert, revert; if you were waiting for further input, you should just have waited rather than repeatedly changing the article back to how you wanted it. I'm glad that the argument's over, however, I feel I have to recommend that you register for a full account here, and yep - enjoy! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

'Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not actually online 24hrs a day... ' is utterly uncalled for! Especially after the dispute is resolved. I was merely making a passing comment in jest and it did not require a rude response. Secondly, thank you for your explanation of the order of editing. Perhaps you ought to explain it to my co editwarer too, who broke those rules just as often as I did, rather than picking one person to have a pop at in particular. Finally, in response to your rude manner, I withdraw my hope that you enjoy the episode. I now hope you hate it and it hates you and you both have a big fight and you lose and it eats you. So there! (p.s. I was joking about that last bit) -- Matt 86.153.63.30 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're far too sensitive. I was also making a passing comment in jest (yes, good faith places requirements on you too). I think that Maccy knows the rules, and knows about WP:BRD, and actually behaved within the spirit of it. I just politely pointed out that if you were waiting for consensus, you should have just waited, not warred as well. I think that we're done, however. If there are any further behavioural issues, they can be dealt with on user-talkpages, as they're not relevant here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title

• In your face :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I did suspect you missed the point in the previous discussion, and sadly this proves that true! I was never arguing that this was or was not the title, only that we ought to have waited for a more reliable source before taking it as fact. Do try to read people's contributions more carefully in future to avoid such confusion. I notice you have been reproached for hasty and improper decision making without due attention before by other admins. As a seeming victim of your inattention I would just reiterate that making sure you actually pay attention to what people are saying rather than just presuming that you know what they are saying might be a better way to go about your business on here. Now, with that being said...doesn't Waters of Mars look excellent! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And again. I was only joking. You can tell this by the humorous comment, the wink, the "sorry, couldn't resist" and the exclamaton mark. Apologies if this is confusing. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, just watch your tone there with that last comment. You are verging into the rude again like I mentioned before, which benefits nobody, especially not yourself. But no, I got that you were being funny and didn't take offense at all! I just think your comment does indicate a problem that needed highlighting, as well as being rather funny! Sorry, after highlighting said problem I ought to have recognised the humour so you got that I wasn't just being grumpy! Anyhow, glad the debate can be laid to rest and it was fun locking horns with you! Catch you on some other page sooner or later, no doubt! -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Waters of Mars Trailer

User:Ckatz has just restored my addition of a link to a trailer video on the BBC site which is not available in the UK. The reason given is "I don't see anything in WP:V that prohibits this, given that tens of millions can access it". I agree with this, but would also like to add that it's only the video that isn't viewable from outside the UK - overseas viewers will still get the page and see that there is a video of a trailer for "The Waters of Mars", they just won't be able to view it. This seems, to me, to be a useful verification that the trailer was shown. Maccy69 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I only removed it because I seem to remember Edokter doing similar things many times before; but I hadn't twigged that non-UK users can still see the salient facts, if not the video.

For future reference, Ckatz, the fact that tens-of-millions can access it (incidentally, exactly the same people who could have watched it live anyway!) is neither here nor there... The threshold for WP:V is that everyone can verify it, and while they can in this case, if the geo-lock was absolute, then I don't think it would be a valid source. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As another issue; would it be appropriate to add a summary of the trailer with an essential screenshot - how does this strike people? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

TT, I believe you're misinterpreting the requirements... WP:V requires that "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". It does not say that all readers must be able to access all sources instantaneously from their web browser; the simple fact that we allow print sources as references is example enough of that. Anyone can verify it, but some may have to go to greater lengths than others to do so. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was overturned on the geo-lock issue, so geo-locked links can be used as a reliable source. That said, trailers are generally very poor sources. — Edokter • Talk • 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As another issue; would it be appropriate to add a summary of the trailer with an essential screenshot - how does this strike people? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think an image might be nice but none of those three really help the reader to understand the subject better. SoWhy 10:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we actually know very little of the subject matter of the episode, and are unlikely to know much more before quite late in the year, this page is likely to become a place for casting/crew etc updates, no? In that case no picture is really going to illuminate the topic as such. If we can identify specificly what it is we are trying to illuminate then we might be better placed to select the correct picture. Any suggestions for what it is in this article that needs pictoral illumination? -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New issue: the trailer is noted as aired 28 July 2009 at San Diego Comic Con, but the edit was made 26 July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abupstate (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anagrammery

io9, which I've been treating as a reliable source because it's professionally run, posted this item on Saturday pointing out that "The Waters of Mars" is an anagram of "War of the Masters". Personally, I think this is probably a coincidence (not least since the John Simm reports didn't start until filming for the final two-parter had begun). If someone added this to the article without a source, we'd remove it without thought as non-notable trivia. But since it's been reported by a reliable source, should we mention it? I'd like to hear opinions on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find this to be the type of speculative trivia that encyclopedias do not go in for. If the episode proves to feature the Master and the title of the episode is important, then of course we can add it then, but if it is a coincidence then why rush to include something that the article is fine without? Put it this way...if the episode DID feature the Master, the title could still very well be a coincidence. It just isn't noteworthy at this point. -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of io9 as a reliable source. I follow io9 myself, and find that a good proportion of the time they are just rehashing tabloid speculation and often indulging in, what wikipedia calls, "original research". Far too often their articles are littered with errors and misinformation, so as a source of information they should be treated with extreme caution. magnius (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether a secondary source engages in original research is immaterial to its reliability. We can't engage in OR, but the vast majority of secondary sources used on Wikipedia do so, appropriately. I take your point about passing on tabloid rumours, but io9 is a professionally run site, and Charlie Anders is a published expert on science fiction media and its fans. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nikki Wilson

In the main article, it states that Nikki Wilson's maiden name is Smith. Does this really need to be included? It seems more likely to be something to put in her own personal page, rather than that for an episode of Doctor Who. 81.129.56.6 (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that was present because she was referred to as Nikki Smith in early reports about the special (having gotten married at some point between the announcement of her working as producer on "The Waters of Mars" and the filming of the special). That said, any potential confusion could be resolved by a hidden-text note, so I'll move the content to hidden text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mia Bennett

I didn't want to put this up on the main page for fear of the usual backlash at adding non-confirmed information (I know how fans can get), but this link seems to be speculation free and gives a name to Gemma Chan's character. Thought I would put it up here first to be assessed before I or someone else added it. :) steveking89 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't state a source for that name, and it isn't mentioned in the Mirror article (not that it would matter, they're not a reliable source). Best leave it until a better source for the name can be found. magnius (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

SFX magazine #189

TreasuryTag just removed information sourced to a blog that itself claims that the information is from SFX magazine #189. Can someone from the UK get their hands on that issue and update this article with new information if necessary? Regards SoWhy 11:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The information itself seems somewhat vague anyway. If that is all that is known then it really isn't worth noting. magnius (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Date

I completely agree with my reverted edit. Here is a new source: The video confirming the date. Thanks,  Cargoking  talk  10:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have referenced it correctly in the article now. Regards SoWhy 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Following - Dreamland?

Should Dreamland be noted in the infobox as a "following" story along with "The End of Time". Examples of similar cases in The Parting of the Ways (With the 2005 CIN special being noted), The Christmas Invasion (with the interactive special Attack of the Graske noted) and Last of the Time Lords (with the 2007 CIN special Time Crash noted). 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no storywise continuity, as opposed to the other specials. The Infinite Quest is also omitted from the preceding and following episodes. — Edokter • Talk • 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The two are very different situations though - RTD has advertised this as a special extra Doctor Who story - which makes it rather different from Infinite quest. It may turn out to have some coninuity with the rest of it - an episode of the spinoff series "sarah jane adventures" has already referred to Dremland. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus - the Dreamland article has "preceding: Infinite Quest" - in what way is The Infinite quest preceding Dreamland. Dreamland is broadcast between Waters of Mars and End of Time - so that's what it should say there. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Airing on a sunday

Is this the first time Doctor who will air on a day other then a saturday and if so, is it relevant to add it to the article? Pro66 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth Doctor episodes aired twice a week. DonQuixote (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the Christmas specials have aired on a Saturday either. In fact the first Xmas special was aired on a Sunday. magnius (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wars of the Master

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rapidly turning into a rather dull general discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I think it might be worth mentioning on the article that 'the waters of mars' is an anagram for 'the wars of the master', which refers to the following special. Remorse1994 (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think not. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 12:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is actually brilliant. Unfortunately, original research is not accepted (see above). Thanks for the insight though, it's got me a-thinking. :)  Cargoking  talk  13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

the Master does like to use anagrams, remember that mister Saxon is an anagram for Master no. six Ultamatecharizard (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that could just be a little Easter egg, just like the number 200 bus in Planet of the Dead. But even still, that doesn't change the significance of OR. Also, "Master No. 6" doesn't get a mention in either master/saxon articles.  Cargoking  talk  14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As Doctor who magazine pointed out months ago, it's also an anagram of "hamster software" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also an anagram of these as well. Remember the Astrid/tardis thing - ye that worked according to speculation didn't it? Sometimes an anagram is just coincidental. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pity or not, it can't be included in the article, and that's that. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 15:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Take out passage?

Should "In late February, David Tennant, Duncan and other actors were seen filming in Victoria Place, Newport.[17] The filming took place on a city street, which the production team covered with artificial snow.[17] Also present during filming were a small robot inscribed with the word "GADGET" and Ood Sigma, from the 2008 episode "Planet of the Ood".[18]" be taken out, as this sounds more likely to be filming of the two Christmas specials, not an episode set on Mars. 194.238.70.70 (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because (as far as I know) it's true. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GADGET is in "Waters of Mars", it appears in a recent press release [1]. magnius (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed from broadcast: Ood Sigma, the snow-covered street, and the robot were present near the end. Dsalt (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Plot?

I apoligize if I am being mislead here, but the plot section on this page isn't much about the plot. Though I understand that not much information may be available at this time, it seems that half of it has nothing to do with the plot. Doesn't it belong somwhere else? Please tell me if I am wrong, from Samjohn95 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It'll do for now, only have to wait until Sunday before it's filled properly. magnius (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm watching it right now, and I thought it intriguing that when the Doctor was recalling the people he met, his memories looked amazingly like pages from Wikipedia. Might be interesting to get some screen-shots at some point. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 19:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they seem more similar to BBC News headlines. Notice the news ticker across the top. out^boxing (work • yada) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think Doctor had a companion for this episode PCrew00 20:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this focussed on the article, thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Companion

Lindsay Duncan should be moved from companion to guest star.REVUpminster (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, she shouldn't. Press reports referred to her as "companion" – they are reliable sources, unlike the personal views of your good self ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• So sorry but I thought a companion travels with the Doctor. I think the BBC put a lot of red herrings out there. REVUpminster (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  You "think" the BBC deliberately misled the press (red herring): that requires a reliable source, one even more reliable than your suspicions. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• There will have to be a new definition of companion. Lindsay Duncan's character did no more than the other "guest stars" except commiting suicide.REVUpminster (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Your personal interpretations (of the definition of 'companion' or of Adelaide's significance) have no bearing on the matter. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree 100% that there's no way that Adelaide was a "companion," in any way, shape or form whatsoever. In fact, a large part of the point of the climax to the episode was reliant upon the fact that the Doctor had no companion to "stop him..." This is definitely another story featuring the Doctor without a companion like "The Deadly Assassin." Blaine Coughlan (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  Again, unless you have a reliable source to back up what you have to say, this is entirely original research. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 06:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re above

This is what is bad about wikipedia. Editors dismissing views as original research then taking all the third party information as gospel when any viewer of the episode would not recognise Lindsay Duncan as a companion.REVUpminster (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand our content policies, and I can only advise that you go and read them. Material posted on Wikipedia has to be verifiable in one or more reliable sources. Your views (unless you provide a reliable source) are by definition original research (that's what original research is), and your subjective ideas about what "any viewer of the episode" would think are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Everything on wikipedia is original research unless cut and pasted from another source. How could a detailed plot summary of this episode appear within an hour of the episode finishing. It is a myth that original research does not exist especially in the entertainment areas of wikipedia but it is just not acknowledged. I'm not a retro editor anyway REVUpminster (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: You clearly don't understand our content policies, and I can only advise that you go and read them. In the mean-time, please stop this discussion (you can see from the archival notices that you're ignoring, not to continue), as we are both just repeating ourselves. Either find a reliable source that says Adelaide was not a companion, or drop the issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The only one putting up archival notices is you .Garda40 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Round 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Adelaide is going to be listed as a companion unless anyone can find a reliable source to the contrary. Get over it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree that the Captain was not an ordinary companion and have added a comment of David Tennant's which confirms this. I have started a separate section for this and other characters where their notable features may be covered. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. For the record, I never said that she was "a companion of the normal sort" – only that she was a companion according to the reliable sources, as the article now reflects. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 20:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah - the traditional "one-off characters can't be companions" debate - happens every time we get one (Astrid, christina, and now adelaide) - it always comes back to one point - people have different ideas about what makes a companion. Debating what a companion is is for fans to do - but this whole "not a companion" thing on wiki - like trasury tag says (and I can't believe I'm actually going to agree with him) comes down to a persons own opinion on the matter. If there is a reliable source for someone as a companion, then it is OR not to include them as one. The BBC does hoaxes? I don't think this was a hoax - I think it was made very clear by RTD and other writers that this would be another one off companion (RTd said leading up to the specials that they would all have one-off companions, not a long term one) - so it's not a case of hoaxing it'd a case of RTD just making someone a companion for one episode - he's done it before, and The End of Time (with Wilf) will do it again. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This may further the debate [2] 94.6.80.150 (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate about Adelaide being a companion, she just isn't. The only argument people are using is that they have some BBC source for this. Sorry but some press release intended to draw attention to a show does not have more clout than 30 years of show history. If you want the article to be incorrect continue using this ridiculous source and ignoring it's context instead of actually looking at the history of the program and what 'a companion' means, not to mention the actual plot of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.222.247 (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So a press release from the BBC saying she's a companion isn't good enough, but your personal opinion is??--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References to other episodes

Would it be acceptable to add somewhere about the Doctor wearing the spacesuit first seen in 'The Impossible Planet' and this reference is expanded upon when the Doctor exits the airlock and a piece of equipment on either side of the door is clearly stamped with 'I.D.A.' the name of one of the principle characters in that story. 93.174.85.203 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation -again

Since I am not going to go 3RR on that section I will point out that first 2 comments are not off topic and apparent placement of comment in wrong section[3] to justify trying to shut down talk page discussion before it has even begun to go off topic is not helpful and I will point out that previous prematurely deleted section by editor concerned (which I reverted ) developed into constructive discussion [4] here .22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to Christmas Special

We shall be keeping this article linked to that of the Christmas Special 2009 article despite the controversy over the title. The main reason is that while the title is in dispute still, the main body of details in the article in 'End of Time (Doctor Who)' should not be ignored James Random (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Followed By" is "TBA"

Following the broadcast of the episode today, we know the new Episode Name for the following episode, "The End of Time". I propose that the "TBA" should be replaced with the title, as we know now what it'll be. TermyJW - The One and Only (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"The End of Time" is title of the the second Christmas special; the first one's title is still unknown. — Edokter • Talk • 00:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This leaves the reason why the preview gave the first one the name "The End of Time" a mystery. MarcRS (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RTD has gone on record (latest DWM) as stating that the Christmas Day has a six word title, so it obviously isn't "The End of Time" (which is the last), so we are still waiting to get a title. magnius (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more and more convinced now that the "six word" title for the Christmas Special will be "The End of Time - Part One." Blaine Coughlan (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the end of Journey's End (iirc) there was a similar banner saying RETURN OF THE CYBERMEN, and a similar discussion about whether that would be the title, and it wasn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 06:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RTD said that 4.18 (ie the second part) Was the end of Time - the first part (4.17) is 6 words. So can't be End of Time or "End of Time Part One" cause then 4.18 wouldn't be just "The End of Time". 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BTw - someone has put End of Time as the following story - can someone change this? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned this subject here earlier today. I'll change it to TBA if nobody objects. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it (see here), though I've no doubt someone will shortly change it back. My own thoughts are that as The End of Time lists the previous episode as TBC, we should fdo a similar thing here with the following episode, and wait till we know for certain. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution that would please everyone would be just to fill the parameter with something along the lines of "Two-part story: 'TBA' (first part), 'The End of Time' (second part)" - with breaks to separate everything out and citations/footnotes if necessary. It may look cluttered, but it would give links to both parts of Tennant's final story within the space of the infobox itself. The "Journey's End" article has something similar, with both "Music of the Spheres" and "The Next Doctor" credited as following on from it. This would obviously only need to be a temporary arrangement until the first half is aired and/or more information becomes available which offers a name for it. SuperMarioMan (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, should we use "TBC" or "TBA"? The specials template uses the latter, unlike the infoboxes for this episode and the End of Time article. SuperMarioMan (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think adding both episodes would work ok. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So, should the TBC/TBA be linked to The End of Time (Doctor Who), as in TBC? It used to be before someone changed the TBC/TBA to The End of Time, then after it was reverted the link to The End of Time was lost in the process. I changed it back to what it was, but someone reverted it. I suppose the question of whether we use following = TBC or following = TBC depends on whether we are using "The End of Time" to refer to both that episode and the one before it, since that article does not exist yet. A look at the beggining of the article: "...According to Doctor Who writer and producer Russell T Davies, the special is closely linked to the next two episodes but is not the first part of a three-part story...", shows that we are, so I suggest linking to The End of Time for the sake of consistency. MarcRS (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the official BBC Doctor Who website, the Christmas episode is indeed called "The End of Time, Part One". Here is the URL where this is reported - http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/features/bulletins/bulletin_091119_01. In addition, in their episode guide the official site have "Dreamland" following "The Waters of Mars". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.210.172 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Yep, that is indeed six words. Tricky devils. DonQuixote (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dalek stories

Can someone please add the template for Dalek stories - this has already been added as a minor appearance on that template. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree that this is a Dalek story. They are only marginally relevant to the episode and the Doctor does not engage them at all. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why it's a minor appearance. Almost everything in that section is a flashback. The Wheel in Space - minor flashback right at the end, The War Games - brief clip, The Mind of Evil - brief clip, Logopolis - brief clip, Mawdryn Undead - brief clip, Doctor Who - off screen only, "Human Nature" - brief clips. Don't see why those tiny flashbacks should get on but not this. If you include those, then this has to go on as well. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bowie Base 1

Is it possible that the article could make reference to the (large) possibility that "Bowie Base 1" was given the name in the episode after David Bowie, the singer of the song Life on Mars which fits quite a lot with the episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.248.56 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems this might be true (see this) and scroll down to BOWIE BASE ONE. I think we'd need a much better reference though for the information to be included. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In Dr WHO confidential RTDavies talks about how David Bowie's name is pronounced to get it right. Now I've spoken, this will be original research and this section will be archivedREVUpminster (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to adopt that attitude at all. Your point above was original research, since it was based soley on your own opinion. If this point is backed up by an episode of "Confidential" – and you are able to cite it properly – then it can certainly go into the article. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 07:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Confidential includes such a scene iirc and Life on Mars is played within it and the Confidential episode's name is "Is there Life on Mars?" but from what I remember RTD never explicitly says "we named the base after David Bowie". I could be wrong though. Regards SoWhy 08:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

At the 23 minute mark: "Is it BO-wie or BA-wie? Because people are saying both." "Oh..." "He, David Bowie, is David BO-wie." "So it's BO-wie. Bowie Base." Nick Levine (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is good enough to confirm it, isn't it? Regards SoWhy 10:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I watched the Doctor Who Confidential episode and would agree that both their discussion of the pronunciation and playing Life on Mars? at multiple points in the episode certainly point to an intentional naming of the base. I've added a citation to the episode video. -- Autopilot (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's definitely one of the most obvious cultural references in Doctor Who, and we all know it's a reference to the man with the superpowered Area, but I'd personally prefer a bit stronger sourcing. Anyone checked the commentary? Sceptre ^(talk) 09:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who Confidential episode 61 is essentially a commentary / making of for the Waters of Mars. The scene in question has Davies and the entire team around the table discussing how David Bowie pronounces his name in conjunction with the name of the base. Another possible source: [5]:

This Sunday's episode, The Waters of Mars, is co-written by Phil Ford and Russell T Davies. I dropped a line earlier to Phil Ford (a veteran scriptwriter of, among other things, Bad Girls, Waterloo Road and Coronation Street), who tells me that the name "Bowie Base One" was his idea. Phil says: "Yes, I'm a Bowie fan, so how could I miss an opportunity like that? I think the name of the base was probably the first thing I thought of. Life on Mars. What else would you call it? So cool."

-- Autopilot (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Monsters not named in story

Would I be right in saying this is the second time the monster hasn't been named within the story, after "Midnight"? Could be worth putting a reference to this in the continuity section El burton (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the stingray thingies in Planet of the Dead? If you count them as "the monster" for that episode, that is. David (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There's an entry on the Doctor Who Wiki about these aliens which uses the title "the Flood", a term which the Doctor uses once or twice within the episode itself. Although the article acknowledges that this is more a nickname rather than a proper designation, it could be mentioned in our plot summary that the infection is referred to in this way. SuperMarioMan (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Iirc, "the Flood" is used in Confidential as well. Someone from the UK who can access it on BBC.co.uk might want to review it to confirm. Regards SoWhy 10:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the commentary to the story (still available at the BBC website) they mention that there was a deleted scene where the creatures refer to themselves as The Flood. While the scene was deleted, David Tennant correctly points out that the Doctor refers to them as "The Flood" twice in the episode. Russel Davies laughs, and says that one explanation is that maybe the Doctor was being poetic. It seems obvious from the context that they intended the creatures to be called The Flood, even if that name is not used by the aliens in the broadcast episode John Finnan (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuity

Is there any information available on how much time has passed in the Doctor's personal timeline between this episode & the previous episodes or the Sarah Jane Adventures episode "The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith" or any information on whether the "spoilers" in Professor River Song's diary (from the episode "Silence in the Library") have already happened or now will not happen? Swampy 58.165.181.8 (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor Understands

"Only now understanding the full impact of his actions, the Doctor is overcome with horror and realises that there will be a price to pay for his interference"

Really he did? Who said that was what went through his mind? My interpretation was that he was horried to feel his own mortality and falibility, which I see as quite different from the above. However, don't get me wrong, I don't argue my view is correct and the above view is wrong, I just think it needs to be reworded to explain what happened, not what he thought or felt unless someone can find a reference/source that authoritively tells us what he thought and felt. Jasonfward (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can some please revert, or re-edit TreasuryTags reverts of my edits? Or at least provide some useful 3rd party feedback, before I made my perfectly valid edit, I flagged my concerns here. Jasonfward (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were by no means "perfectly valid". What you wanted the article to say [6] [7] is not proper English. "The Doctor is overcome with fear sees Ood Sigma appears in the street," is admittedly slightly more outrageous than the latter, "The Doctor overcome with fear sees Ood Sigma appear in the street," but neither look like correctly-constructed sentences that would appear in an encyclopedia to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(And, thinking about it, they're both incorrect—the Doctor doesn't see Ood Sigma appear; as far as I can remember, he only sees him disappear.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we will have to agree to disagree about my later edit, which I was doing WHILST you were reverting me, but you would rather the article contains unsubstantiated claims about the state of mind of the Doctor rather than contain a sentance that doesn't scan well to you? I know which seems the greater crime to me. However, if all that seemed wrong to you was the sentance structure you could always have actually made a useful alterations rather than repeatedly reverting an edit which removes unsubstantiated claims. Jasonfward (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember, neither is actually a crime. And it's not just that the sentence "doesn't scan well [to me]" – it is ungrammatical. I'm not complaining about the rhythm of the words, or the internal poetry of the section! ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So should I try to edit it again? Or should I just expect you to revert anything you don't like? It wouldn't hurt you know to edit the article yourself rather than just obstreperously blocking my attempts to do so. Jasonfward (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

<< I am not prepared to engage with you if you are going to continue in this whining, "there's-a-conspiracy" tone. Leaving rude messages on my talkpage and making completely un-necessary (if not un-substantiated, or even un-true) allegations against me is not constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Birth of the Valeyard

It is part speculation, but it may also be partially relevant to the Continuity section. The Tenth Doctor is reaching a point where he risks becoming the Valeyard from saga The Trial of a Time Lord.

The Valeyard was "an aspect of the Doctor from between his twelfth and thirteenth incarnations", out of regenerations and lacking determined existance, fighting his previous self as he was involved into a trial for "conduct unbecoming a Time Lord and transgressing the First Law of Time". Also, the Master appears to defend the Doctor.

Now: the Tenth Doctor has spent the energy of a regeneration without changing his look, is engaging in conduct unbecoming a Time Lord, transgressing the First Law of Time (or trying to). And we know he is going to endure an ordaly in his last days: remember that plot about the last 10th Doctor episodes seem to be about the Master reborn, but then John Simms said: "It's not quite as easy to guess what's happening as you think - there's [sic] nightmare sequences, and layers of fantasy, because the Doctor's coming to the end of his time". Timothy Dalton, on the other hand, is appearing as a Time Lord... but then he's credited as "The Narrator".

Also: "although their canonicity is unclear [in some spin-off media] the Doctor is aware that he has the potential to become the Valeyard and tries to step away from any path that might lead him to that future. In the Virgin Publishing Missing Adventure "Millennial Rites" by Craig Hinton, the Sixth Doctor succumbed to his darker side and became the Valeyard very briefly due to reality being destabilised by three competing laws of physics being concentrated in one place, but snapped back to normal after he nearly killed an innocent child. Throughout the New Adventures, the Seventh Doctor is tormented by the knowledge that he might become the Valeyard". That is, the possibility of a Doctor-Valeyard could not be constrained to his twelfth selve/regeneration.KalEl el Vigilante (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I'm just proposing a note in the lines of "current behaviour by the Tenth Doctor re-ignites the possibility of the Valeyard" with a link to that character's page.

No, that's entirely original research. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Would such a link be more properly added to the Valeyard entrance in the Wikipedia? We are talking about a character which, both in the TV series and in the books, have just a theoretical, potential existance. Behaviour-paths that tend towards it may be relevant.

No. Any attempt to link the Tenth Doctor's state of mind with the Valeyard requires you to reference a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just left a note on you talk page about this, but, to add to what TreasuryTag has said, I'll repeat it here: you should read about original research. Hopefully that'll make things clear. Maccy69 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blue keyboards

It is unclear why some editors imagine that it is original research to indicate a plain observation about keyboards that is evident from simply viewing episodes (see Wikipedia:NOTOR#Works_of_fiction), or indeed how such is different from any other continuity element. It would be synthesis if there were some attempt to draw some conclusion about them being the same, but that is not the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OR or not, there are many props that show up in other episodes; they do not constitute any continuity or connection to other stories. It is just a trivial observation. — Edokter • Talk • 11:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are claiming that the keyboards are of the same design as those used in Sarah Jane – but you don't know that. PC keyboards today look not dissimilar to those from the 1970s, but this doesn't men that they are of the same design, they work completely differently. You don't know enough about 51st century keyboard design to draw that parallel.

Secondly, given your edit-summary earlier, There is no "A and B therefore C", there is "A and B, therefore A and B", there is no point adding it to the article. You could use the same edit-summary to argue for the inclusion of the sentence, "Those in the Mars base breathe oxygen, the same gas breathed by the planetary colonists in The Impossible Planet." If you're drawing no conclusion, it's not notable. And, as I pointed out above, you're not safe to note the parallel anyway. Best. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Patronizing and irrelevant comments about 1970s keyboards and sarcastic comments about oxygen aside, how is this any different to the continuity note about the Ice Warriors? or the spacesuit from "The Impossible Planet"/"The Satan Pit" (or the entirely different suit in "42")? or K-9? None of those things are specifically mentioned in the episode. And yet a plain observation about keyboards is pounced on as if by rabid wolves. Backing away slowly.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that you have described me as "patronising", "sarcastic", a "rabid wolf" and a "crazy wolf" [8] I conclude that you are clearly not interested in constructive discussion, so I won't bother to continue. I would, however, restate what I commented above, and if you actually read it, you may understand the very relevant analogies that I was trying to draw. ╟─Tag►sheriff─╢ 11:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing about you. I described only your comments, which indeed were reasonably interpreted as patronizing and sarcastic. I called no-one at all a "crazy wolf" (which was a reference to fixing a typo from 'rapid' to 'rabid'), and the reference to "rabid wolves" was not addressing you in particular.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else will answer the questions that were ignored above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I repeat that my comments were neither patronising nor sarcastic, and would urge you to read them charitably, so that you might understand what I was getting at. Then, perhaps, you could respond.

As to your "ignored" questions, they weren't ignored. You're quite right, the material you referred to did breach policy, and I have removed it. Thanks for pointing it out! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 12:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understood the analogies, and regardless of the intent, they certainly seemed patronizing and sarcastic. The analogy about oxygen would not come across as condescending, if say, the keyboards common to the Whoniverse in 2059 were exactly the same as keyboards now, in which it case, it would be just as irrelevant as breathing oxygen. Responding by deleting the other material seems a bit like one-upmanship, but I'll leave that for other editors to discuss.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Just a hint for the future: accusing other editors of one-upmanship, patronising, sarcasm (where they clearly meant no offence to be taken), and tossing around the phrases "rabid wolves" in a way ambiguous enough that others might well take it to refer to them, is not helpful, and does not lead to constructive discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 12:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we know Adelaide committed suicide?

Or is this just speculation? It certainly is suggested; I haven't freeze-framed to check the newspaper articles. 203.219.163.76 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

She takes the gun from her holster before she goes into her house, then we see the muzzle flash (or the light-gun equivalent) and hear the shot being fired. In pre-watershed UK and mainstream US shows, that's the best you can get to knowing they've committed suicide. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the newspapers are shown very shortly afterwards with "Mars" changed to "Earth" as the location of her death. As Sceptre says, it's not shown explicitly but there is no reasonable doubt that "takes gun" => "shot fired in empty house" => "newspaper reporting her death on Earth" should mean anything else than that. On a side note, after re-reading the plot section I think it needs to be rewritten completely anyway. Regards SoWhy 12:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The interactive information panels (not newspapers) do specifically mention suicide. (59:09-59:12 "Survivors Story - Brooke Saved Earth ... the unexplicable [sic] circumstances behind Captain Adelaide Brooke's recent suicide.") - --Jeffro77 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Robots Continuity

Re TreasuryTag in this edit, in my opinion, in the context of a franchise where a man builds a robotic dog which becomes a recurring character, should that man say it is distasteful for someone to dress up robots unless they happen to be dressing them up as a dog, I don't think it would be it would be original research to note that one is a reference to the other.

I'd consider it, at most, "reading the line as it was meant to be read", because I think it's fair to say it's an allusion that is obvious to anyone who has been watching the series, i.e. not original research. It's not any more speculative than, to borrow an example from above, it is speculative to say Adelaide committed suicide. It's obvious from the show itself, even if it relies on the audience to realise it for themselves...

I raise this here to see if & why other editors consider this to be OR-interpretation, so... I welcome your reasoning (=.

(I'm talking exclusively about the gadget paragraph, incidentally, not the other changes in that edit 8-) ) --JCrue (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd argue that the K9 observation is hardly OR. The character last appeared only three episodes ago in "Journey's End", so any regular viewer or committed fan would surely see the connection. The reference to "The Fires of Pompeii" was retained in the edit linked above and is just as much OR or non-OR, depending on each person's view, as the reference to K9, as I can't recall the Doctor actually mentioning the word "Pompeii" in this episode (only that he is proud to be able to save more than just "little people" from a disaster, the "little people", in relation to the Pompeii episode, being Caecilius and his family). Or I could be totally wrong, my memory of the dialogue isn't that great. But seriously, when the Doctor makes an exception for dogs, what else could he be talking about, other than the dog that accompanied him for three years in the classic series and which has gone on to resurface, twice, in the Davies revival? SuperMarioMan (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it obviously refers to K-9, however, in the absence of a reliable source explicitly using the same process of reasoning that we are, I think it may be original research. Also see WP:NOCOMMON. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 14:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference to K9 and a few other continuity references were removed to make a point; however, elements that are directly observable from a body of fiction (such as a television series) are not original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

They were not removed to make a point, they were removed because (in my honest belief) they contravened Wikipedia's content policies. I now request that you, Jeffro, stop making allegations that I am disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

WP:NOTOR#Works of fiction is not only an essay (as in, not policy), but I contend that interpreting an episode based on what you consider to be "logical reasoning" is inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As there was never any claim that you intended to be disruptive, there is nothing to stop. However, I apologize to your sensitivity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will reword more clearly. I did not delete those notes to "make a point" (quote unquote), so please stop alleging that I did, as you said here – thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The horse is dead, dude.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. I shall then expect you to heed my above request. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Expect away. WP:LASTWORD--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessarily disruptive to make a point (and that is why I didn't link to WP:POINT), and I did not contend that your point was specifically intended to disrupt. But all the same, the other items were deleted because they were similar to something else you objected to, though they had been accepted prior to the other thing you objected to.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

They had not "been accepted" – I hadn't noticed them before, but when you prompted me to read over the section, I realised that they too should go. There is no rule saying that once an edit stands for × number of days, it becomes "accepted".

And I repeat that they were not deleted to "make a point" – I read them for the first time, considered them to violate the content policies, so removed them. Simple. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 13:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Air dates

Care to add Canada's "Space" to the Dec 19 list?

- J Greb (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Companion part 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In the subsequent episode The End of Time the Doctor visits his old companions which did not include Adelaide. He could have done as he did with Rose. Is this next episode a reliable source?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.163.161 (talk • contribs)

No, unless I missed a line where it was explicitly stated that Adelaide wasn't a companion. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 22:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asteroid impact

TreasuryTag: I'm in the process of obtaining a video clip, so I can provide the time stamps and include it in a cite. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It would also be to your benefit to read WP:BRD very carefully. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BRD is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Says so in the box at the top of that page. I would in turn remind you to be careful not to violate WP:3RR, which is in fact a policy. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa - OK, looks like what I thought was an asteroid was probably either Deimos or Phobos doing a fly-by. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Waters of Mars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225115205/http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/david-tennant-unveils-dr-who-special-the-waters-of-mars/1v2KA7Vu4Qm3qtbF_ecxaA to http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/david-tennant-unveils-dr-who-special-the-waters-of-mars/1v2KA7Vu4Qm3qtbF_ecxaA
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69RvfGtlG?url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/?episode=S0_06 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/?episode=S0_06&character=&action=videostream&playlist=%2Fdoctorwho%2Fplaylists%2Fs0_06%2Fvideo%2Fs0_06_trl_02.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)