Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Featured article

This page is now a featured article. Congratulations to all my fellow editors who've put time on this page in the last year or so to make it what it is, and kudos all around for all the good work. Now let's see if we can't get the other pages up to speed... -khaosworks 15:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am amazed that a "little" topic like this required about 650 edits over more than 3 years before making it to featured status. Rmhermen 17:11, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Part of it is that when I first came across the article, it was desperately in need of copyediting. Doctor Who is a huge project, and many parts - especially the story synopses - are still in disarray. As far as the main article was concerned, there were no references, one picture, trivial information, and organizationally it was a mess. Once it was rewritten, and people started chiming in, spinning off sections into their own articles, refining it... all this was over the course of the last ten months, so that's a better periodization for its improvement. -khaosworks 17:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well done to all involved. I like to think I managed to help a couple of times along the way. Now, who's going to suggest it for front page featuring? :-) Angmering 17:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Somebody did, because now it's on the front page. Hooray! Gwimpey 01:48, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Viewership: the Netherlands

I remember this when I was young in the Netherlands. Shouldn't it be mentioned that it used to be shown in the Netherlands? Andries 11:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a bit silly to reel off a list of countries this programme has been shown in ; there are dozens of such countries... --Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Was it in English or dubbed? I'd think there would be an ineterest in a list of foreign languages the show has been dubbed in... And information about the actors who performed the dubbed voices. Ravenswood 18:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BBC one

Is it going to be only avaible on bbc one ? I really would like to see the new episodes here in US.

This is not a place to talk about Doctor Who. It's a place to talk about the Doctor Who article on Wikipedia. --Doradus 03:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

But as you asked here anyway - yes it will be shown in the US. No news on the station as of yet, but it will be a cable network of some sort, if the worst comes to the worst at least BBC America will show it for you, but it *should* get on a bigger station than that. The series has already been pre-sold to Prime TV in New Zealand and CBC Television in Canada. Angmering 10:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this is speculation as no announcement has been made of a U.S. broadcaster yet and the BBC won't be drawn on who it is negotiating with. Wait and see.David Farmbrough

Dalek ranks

Have a look at Dalek ranks. I've tried a cleanup, but the state of it is quite dire, and desperately needs copyediting and to sort out all the bad information from the good. Maybe it should be redirected to "Dalek models" or something. Suggestions and thoughts? -khaosworks 09:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think the information in it needs to be incorporated into the main Dalek article PaulHammond 16:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main Dalek article is already 27,688 bytes, and the Dalek ranks article is 6,738 bytes. Splicing them together would push the Dalek article right up to the 32 kilobyte recommended size limit where it becomes advisable to split the article up. I think the current division is fine, IMO. Bryan 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I've read the main Dalek article, and I think the stuff about different types of Dalek would be too much of a tangent from what is already there. The main article is good. PaulHammond 15:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the Dalek ranks information is way too specific, and on a first read there seemed to be lots of errors... I think it would suffice to cut the article down to a short paragraph or even a couple of sentences, and then include that in the main Dalek article. -Guybrush 02:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What sorts of errors? I think cutting the current rank article down to a paragraph would eliminate a lot of information. What's the problem with keeping it separate? Wikipedia isn't paper, we can afford to be highly detailed on what would otherwise be "niche" subjects. Bryan 04:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For a start, we can get rid of Dalek Warrior and Dalek Drone - there's never been any such classification on screen (same reason I got rid of Dalek Lieutenant). --khaosworks 04:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a "Plain 'ol" Dalek classification when we do, to allow the other types to be contrasted against it. Perhaps "Renegade Dalek"? Bryan 04:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category: Doctor Who

I'm thinking of creating a new sub-category: Doctor Who actors, to organize it a bit more. Maybe even add Doctor Who production team (or someone can come up with a better name). Any thoughts? Unnecessary? -khaosworks 16:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure about the whole production team but some of the more prolific writers, such as Terry Nation, probably merit their own sub-category.--TylerD 17:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea if you're still considering it, but it definitely seems worthwhile. There's not too much info on the production team(s) outside of the original lineup and the new series (mentioned in the history summary). I would suggest a new sub-category, but it could probably also be appended to a new paragraph in the history section.... – Seancdaug 09:16, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Since December, we've added Category: Doctor Who people, with associated sub-categories. Have a look. -khaosworks 09:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Nice. Has anyone brought up the idea of doing a list page (I'm specifically thinking of script editors and producers, here)? A chronological list, I mean? – Seancdaug 16:00, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Don't think so. I can see it as a link off of History of Doctor Who. --khaosworks 20:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing episodes

This section has grown to a respectable size, I think, that it can be spun off into its own article (with a summary and link like the History and The Doctor sections off the main page). Information should be merged with List of incomplete Doctor Who serials as well. Anyone want to do this? -khaosworks 08:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I was moderately surprised to find that there doesn't seem to be any information on John Cura and/or telesnaps on Wikipedia. As a subject, it's probably important enough to have its own article, and my brief (and woefully incomplete) summary can be removed once it has one. I can cobble something together, if everyone agrees it would be worthwhile.... – Seancdaug 08:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

It certainly is worthwhile, but I'm not sure Cura deserves an article on his own - I'd have to see. As it is, I think that putting it all under the umbrella of a Missing Episodes article would be a good start. Anyone else have any comments? -khaosworks 09:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Cura, the man is nothing if not prolific. Telesnaps aren't an exclusively DW-related phenomenon, and there have been a variety of scholarly and semi-scholarly writings on his work. If he did have an article of his own, it most likely wouldn't fall directly under the Doctor Who umbrella, but it would certainly be relevant to DW material. In case anyone's interested, there's more info on Cura and telesnaps here (which would be a good source for any prospective article on the man). I'll put something together and make it available under my user pages: if it looks good, it can be moved to its own page. – Seancdaug 09:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Difference between cancellation and hiatus (or lack thereof...)

Khaosworks, I noticed you reverted my edit that removed the "not cancelled outright" line. This line is both incorrect, technically speaking, and misleading in its implications, because, from a production/business standpoint, there is no difference between "cancelling" a series and "declining to produce/air any more of a series." Doctor Who was cancelled in 1989, just as it was in 1985 (when, despite the BBC's repeated promises that the show would return, it was still considered "cancelled"). I understand your desire to clarify that the BBC intended to find an outside production house to continue to the show, but that information is portrayed clearly in the sentences following the line in question, as well as before, with the use of the word "suspension." At best, the line is redundant, at worst, it's flatly misleading and gives a wrong impression of how the industry works. – Seancdaug 02:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference. When a show is cancelled, that's pretty much it - there is no interest in producing a new one. BBC continued to source for ways to bring it back pretty much continually through the 1990s and even after that. Maybe Angmering might want to take this one. -khaosworks 05:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But that's not a difference. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but it has no basis in production reality. A program is either under production or its not. It is commissioned on a season-by-season basis, and when there is no intention to make or air a new season, that program is cancelled. It can be "uncancelled" (or, more correctly, revived or renewed) later on, though. Take, as an example, Star Trek: it was inarguably cancelled in 1969, but efforts to revive it, in some form or another, commenced very shortly thereafter. The fact that the BBC was actively seeking to revive the show in some form or another is certainly worthy of note, and for all the reasons you've stated, but to suggest that the show wasn't cancelled is simply not true. The best policy, IMO, is simply to omit the references to cancellation (as my edit did) to avoid any misconceptions, and to simply specify the actions taken by the BBC during and following 1989 to secure the future of the show. – Seancdaug 12:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

We'll try it this way. Just to note that, in future, if there is "talk" about changes, you should not make any edits from the baseline version (i.e., before those edits started) without those issues being resolved first, lest it lead to edit wars. --khaosworks 15:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that the BBC is now stating that the show was cancelled in 1989 David Farmbrough.29 Mar 2005

Removed POV comment

I have removed the following comment, which was made in relation to the 3-5m viewing figures of the later series:

Such figures would likely be seen as acceptable in the UK in the current multi-channel digital television age, however.

This comment is inherently POV, and is also almost certainly wrong. Passport to the Sun was dropped for having viewing figures in this range, and that was a relatively cheaply produced low-profile show. If last night's figures for Dr. Who were that low it would be regarded as an unmitigated disaster by the BBC given the ammount of hype surrounding it, let alone the money spent on it. Rje 02:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Viewership

I think it's only reasonable that we mention that Rose was very heavily trailed for several weeks beforehand (even on Radio 4 - they surely didn't trail Noel's House Party, occupant of a comparable slot, on radio 4!). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 02:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original Airing of the 20th Anniversary Special The Five Doctors

I thought that this would be a better place to make this point than throwing an edit into the fine Doctor Who site here at Wikipedia. "The Five Doctors" was actually broadcast on many PBS stations around the US on November 23rd, 1983. I saw it in Denver, Colorado on KRMA. The PBS stations that didn't broadcast it weren't showing the show anyway. It even received a feature article in the TV Guide magazine for that week. In closing I would like to echo what several others on this page have said. There are dozens of websites for this show with lots of information out there. You Wikipedia editors have done a wonderful job in distilling that info into a readable and cogent form. Many Thanks.MarnetteD | (talk) 02:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI, The information on the PBS showing of The Five Doctors is on that page, as well as under the "Viewership" section in this article. -khaosworks 02:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. A perusal of both spots you mentioned showed that they both state that the premiere showing of this episode was in Chicago, as though that was the only station that aired it that night. I was simply pointing out that its original airing reached a much wider audience than just one city. I didn't want to edit out the station in Chicago by replacing it with the phrase "It was aired on PBS stations nationwide", because Chicago was important to Doctor Who fandom at that time. It hosted the wonderful 20th anniversary convention on November 26th and 27th, 1983, that I was lucky enough to attend. I am enjoying reading the many contributions that you have made to the Doctor Who pages, Khaosworks, here at Wikipedia.MarnetteD | (talk) 13:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Eccleston has quit

I've added to the article that Christopher Eccleston has left his role as the Doctor [1]. Apparantly the Beeb are after David Tennant to fill the role, some step from Casanova to the Doctor... Rje 23:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, sheesh. Just two more Doctors to go before we get a series starring the Valeyard. Though I suppose that'd be interesting in its own way. :) Bryan 01:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm still hoping its all just an early April Fool's Joke. But if it is true, at least Eccleston has had a longer on-screen tenure than McGann... maybe they could do books for the 9th Doctor before he met Rose? --Travlr23 04:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sadly unlikely - Rose hints that it hasn't been that long since the Ninth Doctor's regeneration. No doubt fan disappointment and speculation will run rife. --Guybrush 04:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Considering that each episode doesn't necessarily immediately continue into the next (Rose goes into The End of the World, but after that, we're not sure), you could fit a reasonable number of adventures in there. You could fit Ninth Doctor solo or with other companion adventures in the gap between the time he leaves at the end of Rose and when he returns to pick up Rose again. --khaosworks 04:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no argument there; there are at least three novels presumably set between episodes of this season. As for the Doctor travelling solo, you're right: there could also be a lot of personal time in his little departure/return sequence at the end of the episode. After all, the Eighth Doctor supposedly spends three years somewhere else while leaving Sam at a Greenpeace rally for a few hours in the novels (during which time he has the adventures in the Radio Times comic strip and, some fans suggest, his travels with Charley from the Big Finish audio adventures). But before he shows up seems unlikely, though of course something must have led him to Earth in the first place... -- Guybrush 14:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Has it actually been established that the t.v. movie is considered canon and that Eccleston is really the 9th and not the 8th doctor? And, of course, it'd take only one episode to change the Doctor's future so the whole valeyard thing changes. --Yamla 05:20, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

As far as Davies is concerned, Eccleston is the Ninth Doctor, and the McGann Doctor has been mentioned in all the publicity material. Definitive enough for me. --khaosworks 05:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually Davies has been even more explicit; he was quoted in DWM as saying that "He's the same man who fought the Drahvins, The Macra, The Axons, The Wirrn, the Terileptils, the Borad, the Bannermen and the Master in San Francisco on New Year's Eve 1999." So yes, he's the official Ninth Doctor. It'll be interesting when we get a statement from him about Eccleston's departure, though... -- Guybrush 14:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Davies also makes his position clear in Queer as folk, where he has one of the characters say "Paul McGann doesn't count". And he has explicitely stated that he did not want to show the doctors regeneration into Eccleston, which allows him to avoid showing who he had regenerated from.

Reason they can't show McGann's history is not dislike, it's money. US Companies own half the rights to the telemovie, and the Beeb don't feel like forking over obscene amounts of money to the corporate yanks for 10 minutes of onscreen time. McGann's appeared in recent Beeb behind-the-scenes stuff(flashes in Doctor Who Confidential) and had at least as much screen time in the pre-series docu-film as Syl McCoy did.

CBC involvement?

I've been wondering about the text at the top of the page, which says that "The series is produced by BBC Wales in association with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". I haven't seen this bit of information anywhere else (not even in the history article), and it's not mentioned again here; anyone know where it came from? As far as I can tell it's spurious at best and should probably be deleted. CBC broadcast the programme, but they had no involvement in its production. -- Guybrush 23:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nuh-uh. There *is* some sort of CBC involvement: it's in the end credits and it's also mentioned here. Hig Hertenfleurst 23:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah...cool. Well, this is why I asked. Can't believe I missed that in the end credits. -- Guybrush 02:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well it's not on the end credits in the UK, so that may be a reason if that's where your episodes are coming from! :-) I believe the deal was basically a pre-purchase agreement, when it comes down to it. Certainly they don't have any kind of creative involvement, they just put some money in. Angmering 10:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So does that mean that the CBC note ought to be struck or not? GraemeLeggett 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we're taking a vote, my view is that it should be left in - it may not be in the UK end credits, but the BBC still refers to CBC as its co-production partner in its press releases and such - the first time I noticed this was when the story about where the Rose leak came from broke. "In association with" is suitably vague and it doesn't take much away. If we can pin down exactly what they're doing (financial assistance) then we can make it more specific. --khaosworks 13:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ISTM that the sale to CBC was negotiated after the programme had been made and therefore after it had been financed. I don't think that counts as a co-production...FWIW this will probably come out in the wash in the next few months.--DavidFarmbrough 16:51, 15 Apr 2005 (BST)

Well, the deal was announced in August 2004, so they'd only been shooting a month. The BBC almost certainly would have made exactly the same series with or without them by that point anyway, but they were certainly on board early-on. Angmering 18:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CBC deal is a broadcast deal and not a co-production deal. One BBC press release has been identified that refers to a co-production deal and even this is ambiguously worded. The end credits in the UK do not refer to CBC asa co-producer. Neither do CBC have an executive producer working on the programme (which would be standard practice in co-production). The most recent series of Doctor Who has been exclusively produced by BBC Wales. It is entirely credible that an extra credit appears on the Canadian broadcast as part of the deal if sufficient funding had been provided. However, this is not co-production. That is like saying that a creditor for a production should be considered a production partner. This is simply not the case. Many small scale creditors fund film productions, but are not co-producers. If we follow the logic of this argument then all British licence fee payers should be given a credit for co-production.

Opening sentences

Perhaps I'm being a little dim here, but does the broadcast schedule of the new series actually belong in the opening paragraphs? Ought'n it go further down under history (an internal link would suffice to take you direct there)? If a reader wants to see when its on, they can buy the Radio Times/local newspaper. GraemeLeggett 16:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite remember when it was inserted but I think it was when the series started. As an overview paragraph, the broadcast times and where it's broadcast is important enough, I think, so people can get a good flavour of what it is from the get go. --khaosworks 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with GraemeLeggett, the broadcast times do not belong in the opening section. Mentioning the boradcast companies is fine though. --Commander Keane 13:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I approve of the change to: "It is also known for often having low-budget special effects for most of its history." -- even though this sentence was intended to address the improved special effects in the 2005 series, I do recall that the final season (or two?) with Sylvester McCoy did have vastly improved special effects, when compared to earlier years. Ravenswood 16:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal

Question: If someone types "Doctor Who" into the search box, should they be redirected to Doctor Who or to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Doctor Who? Bluap

Defenitly. It's far more useful and I didn't even know it existed before now. --Jamdav86 17:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, personally. While the Wikiportal is useful, and very well put together, I worry that we'd be adding a layer of abstraction to the search process that is undesirable. Are there any other examples of redirecting straight to a Wikiportal around here? – Seancdaug 01:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Music in Doctor Who

The dcescription of Doctor Who contains the line, "innovative use of music". There's also been references to the different opening themes used over the years. Somebody (other than me -- sorry!) should write an article about the music in Doctor Who. IMHO. Ravenswood 16:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

'See Also' list

The problem is that if you're looking for, say, a list of Doctor Who villians, it is not clear where one should click (or even if such a thing is available.) Khaosworks removed my note next to the Character List link, claiming it was unnecessary. I feel that it is necessary, since it's not obvious that things such as Villians and Aliens can be found there. Can anyone else propose an alternate solution? Or vote on which existing version is better? Thanks. Ravenswood 18:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

REFERENCE:

Ravenswood version:

• List of supporting characters in Doctor Who (Includes Companions and other recurring characters, Villians, Alien species, and Characters from Doctor Who spin-offs)

Khaosworks version:

• List of supporting characters in Doctor Who

The comment should be reinstated (or a similar one) or the name of the article should be changed, as one would not automatically think of a villain as a supporting charcater. Tim! (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tim and Ravenswood. --bjwebb 14:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is, cut it down to simply read "includes companions, villains, aliens and other significant characters". As it is, it's also overlong as a tag line. --khaosworks 01:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "includes villains and aliens", or "includes villains, aliens, etc."? I don't think you need to list them all, simply the things people would not readily associate with "supporting characters". -- Wisq 04:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

The third alternative: Split the article up, and list thusly:

• List of supporting characters in Doctor Who
• List of aliens and villians in Doctor Who

I think this makes the contents of both lists pretty clear.

If everyone's agreeable to that, I'll make the change in the next few days. Ravenswood 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the list, as opposed to the use of a Category generated list. GraemeLeggett 20:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Presumably for the extra data like 'with the first doctor', 'seasons 3-4', etc. You'd have to create a lot of categories to accomplish what that page does on a single one. And most of the list will never change because they're done and over with, so it's mostly an add-only list rather than a large, dynamic, hard-to-manage one. Just my guess. -- Wisq 21:01, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

a list can contain articles which do not yet exist, whereas a category cannot. Tim! (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

RE: "What's the purpose of the list, as opposed to the use of a Category generated list." -- I've always wondered about the opposite: Why do we have Categories, when we could just use lists? Ravenswood 21:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Part of the reason I don't like the idea of splitting it up is firstly, the list isn't that long and secondly, with lists there's a temptation to list and then wikify every minor character that's ever appeared - at least here we're sticking to significant characters, etc. The list of robots already makes me uneasy because of this. Generally, I find lists - unless bounded by their very nature (i.e., like the list of serials/episodes) - encourage stub articles, which then wind up on vfd and can cause headaches and arguments about fancruft, which is why I don't really like them. But on a more practical level, categories can be nested very neatly and cross-referenced between hierarchies of categories much easier than lists can be nested. --khaosworks 21:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

A list can also contain information about characters too minor too warrant their own article... i.e. it is in itself an article about the items in the list Example: Telos Doctor Who novellas is more than just a listTim! (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It can be, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that all too often it isn't, and mostly the non-list bits are barely substantial, Telos being a case in point, and robots being another. Now, while Telos at least has the glimmer of being expanded on to the point of say, the Virgin New Adventures, the scope for writing something similar for "List of alien races" that goes beyond fan trivia is not. --khaosworks 21:50, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right the robot list is not really going anywhere. Well at least it is better than a stub for each of its items. Tim! (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Are we all on board with...

• List of supporting characters in Doctor Who -- includes companions, villains, aliens, and other significant characters

...? Ravenswood 22:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Can't find a clear consensus here. Everyone has their own idea. I think that text could be shortened, myself:

• List of supporting characters in Doctor Who, including villains and aliens

-- Wisq 23:18, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

I can get behind that. --khaosworks 03:22, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think Wisq's suggestion sounds good --bjwebb 15:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Ravenswood 21:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

fine Tim! (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Can't we get a '10 faces of doctor who' picture with them going round in order, not Tom Baker to Colin Baker and Peter Davison last?

It's not difficult to do so as it's my photoillustration - I just thought people might find it a bit confusing to do it clockwise, as it's not really a round or square shape. Does anybody else think it should be clockwise instead of up to down, left to right? Like I said, it's only a minute or so of shuffling the Photoshop file around. --khaosworks 11:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would get confusing if it went round clockwise. I prefer it as it is. --Jawr256 11:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that clockwise would be the best way, and that a number (bottom right corner of each picture?) would link it nicely to the list at the side. violet/riga (t) 11:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have a better picture of the TARDIS in "Viewership". --Jawr256 15:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Current series question

Rose is prevented from (quite understantably) trying to save her dad in Father's day.

The communications satellite is able to change the course of Earth's history for 90 years and the Doctor is then able to divert it for another century, with a Dalek invasion for good measure - yet nothing happens.

Surely having a character destined to be one of the UK's best PMs in one episode and becoming a city mayor the next time she appears, is a rather blatent failure of series continuity?

What are you talking about? Harriet Jones was the future PM, not Margaret Blaine. --khaosworks 20:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the communictions satellite tampering with time? --bjwebb 14:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Technology

It's clearly worth pointing out that the technology in Doctor Who is Sufficiently Advanced. Chandon 02:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clarke's laws are mentioned in the serial Battlefield... Tim! (talk) 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh, I don't get what you're on about. --bjwebb 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clarke's three laws. I put a note on the Battlefield article. Tim! (talk) 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How does that resolve the fact that time has been tampered with. Are the systems so advanced that it doesn't matter? Or weren't you refering to the above section at all. --bjwebb 20:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Different section. He's talking about Chandon's remark about "sufficiently advanced" technology. --khaosworks 20:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Alternative meaning

I think we need to make a comment near the top of the article saying something similar "Doctor Who is also the name of the main character in the Dalek films which are based loosely on the series". --bjwebb 18:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Loosely based? Same character. There are not 2 Doctor Whos and the Daleks SqueakBox 18:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would say it is only loosely based because:

1. The main character is called Doctor Who and not The Doctor
2. He is human not a Time Lord
3. He has two (not one) grandaughters: Susan and Barbara (Susan is the Doctor's grandaughter but if I am thinking correctly Barbara was just a comanion)

As for the second Dalek film it is Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 AD. --bjwebb 18:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case it should be in a paragraph of it's own near ther bottom. This is not a real chap, and with artistic licence and all that; certainly the Doctor Who I knew as a child (69 onwards) was not a grandfather, as the series had moved on; to now say he is human with 2 granddaughters still sounds like the same Doctor Who to me, and therefore this version should be included as a part of the article, SqueakBox 20:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

In addition "Dr. Who" character from the Cushing films is relatively obscure - nobody really associates him with the Doctor except fans and most people are surprised at the mention of the movie. The question is also how to treat the character; as a completely different character, or as an apocryphal (so to speak) version of the Doctor. Certainly, "Dr. Who" is based on the Doctor and supposed to be the Doctor, just with all those added fiddly bits that the movie adds on. To say that "Doctor Who is also the name..." is to really say that "this isn't the same character, this is just something else with coincidentally the same name" which is not quite right. Cushing's "Dr. Who" is best covered, and is, under the other appearances section. Don't get me started on the Japanese "Dr. Who" in the movie "King Kong Escapes"... --21:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the other appearances suffices. I'm sure I did a "Find (on this page)" for "Cushing" to see if it was mentioned and found nothing though. I guess I spelt it wrong. --bjwebb 13:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't realised Bjwebb was talking about the Cushing films. It reinforces what I was saying; but yes, lets have a paragraph low down about them as they were great films, and very much a part of the Doctor Who and the Daleks tradition, SqueakBox 15:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

(celebrity) guest appearances

I think this needs to be a short paragraph, I fear otherwise it will turn into a great long list (needing to be spun off to its own article and always open to NPOV) that serves no purpose whatsoever. Distinction should also be made between "Celebs" as well-respected-British-actors (Richard Todd, Julain Glover), well-known-actors-in-other-roles (Michael Sheard), actors-later-to-become-well-known (Martin Clunes) and non-actors-not-acting-but-there-for-their-so-called-celebrity (Davina McCall etc). Harsh words perhaps? GraemeLeggett 09:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This is trivial, and should be in an article of its own, not in the main feature article. I'm moving it, with a See Also link. --khaosworks 11:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

well knownactors "slumming it" was a feature of the programme and should still be mentioned in the article.GraemeLeggett 13:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Monsters" should be "The Villains" or similar

Not all the baddies on Doctor Who are "monsters". I changed this to "The Villains" a while back, but it was reverted. "The Enemies" could also work.

In particular, one of the Doctor's greatest adversaries, the Master, is of the same race as the Doctor. (I was surprised to find that the Master was entirely left out of this section until I added him.) Categorizing him a "monster" may be arguably somewhat valid in a poetic sense, but it really doesn't work too well.

--Max Clarke

"Adversaries" seems to be a better description all around and should cover both. --khaosworks 05:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The gay question in Doctor Who

I am writing in response to the editor who removed my addition concerning Russell T. Davies' introduction of a gay/bisexual character. It is fair comment and criticism to bring up a radical change in a television show that has been aired on both sides of the Atlantic for decades. These two altered paragraphs were deleted by a self-elected 'guardian' of Doctor Who, and I would like to submit them for public approval. Is there anything inflammatory or personal said against the Doctor Who producer? Is it suddenly wrong to criticize a move that might injure the credibility of a great British institution?

The series' taboo was controversially broken in the 1996 Fox television pilot when the Eighth Doctor was shown kissing companion Grace Holloway. This development may have been calculated to attract female American viewers. The 2005 series strongly hinted at a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. However, another controversy emerged when male companion Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) demonstrated bisexual flirtations with both the Doctor and his companion. During the Ninth Doctor's regeneration story, Harkness places a kiss full on the Time Lord's lips.

Whereas both Doctor Who producers John Nathan-Turner and Russell T. Davies have been openly gay, it must be noted that, in ten years of Doctor Who, Nathan-Turner never incorporated his own lifestyle into a single storyline. Whether Davies' bold, provocative statement will alienate mainstream Doctor Who fans remains to be seen.

I guess the difference between JNT and RTD, is that the BBC in 1980s would never have allowed such content in the show, but after the success of shows like RTD's Queer as Folk, noone bats an eyelid anymore. There is more controversy over the 12-rating of the Dalek episode [2] Tim! (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and both The Happiness Patrol and The Curse of Fenric had gay themes (admittedly not blatantly). Tim! (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me just start off by stating how I viewed the events. This is simply as background. I didn't see a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. That is, no part of the show made me think there was any actual sexual activity between the two. Harkness is a different matter, of course, though even in this case, only some flirtation seemed to have actually taken place.

I have no problem whatsoever with the first paragraph given above. In fact, it may even be worth expanding it to state whether or not this is the first time on mainstream, prime-time t.v. that an openly bisexual major character has been portrayed. I suspect not, but at least one of my friends have stated it is so.

Your second paragraph, however, is much more inflammatory in my opinion. Presumably by 'lifestyle', you mean homosexuality. Because certainly Nathan-Turner incorporated large parts of his lifestyle apart from homosexuality. Additionally, the paragraph reads to me that having a bisexual character in the show is deeply shocking. I'm not at all sure this is true and even if it is, it probably shouldn't be, not this far past the 19th century. In any case, you may well not have intended the second paragraph to read as such (and, let's face it, perhaps nobody else would find it at all inflaming). Anyway, I think the second paragraph could be rewritten to be a bit more encyclopedic. --Yamla 21:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would note that there was no controversy surrounding Jack's introduction as a bisexual character, unlike what the added paragraph implies. There was no public outcry; there wasn't even a glimmer of a whisper about that kiss in The Parting of the Ways - the torture scene in Dalek drew more attention because of Mediawatch's complaint. So even that first paragraph is inaccurate. This is editorialising, not encyclopedic. --khaosworks 22:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Having read your collective assessments, I find it evident that we do have a controversy on our hands. For the record, I also wrote two editorials in the Sci-Fi Channel magazine in 1996 and 1997 protesting Paul McGann's romance with Dr. Grace Holloway -- because it felt unfaithful to the series. I feel the same is true about this current development. Small wonder why the U.S. Sci-Fi Channel did not pick up the new series after "viewing several episodes?" Until the last few episodes with Jack Harkness, my wife and I could not figure why they would pass up a "sure bet" for the year 2005.

I may only seem part of a Doctor Who minority, but I did notice reviewers on the Time Meddlers website expressing some qualified doubts as to whether children should be exposed to gay or bisexual themes. I would not even object so much to a same-sex relationship portrayed among the supporting cast, as some may have interpreted from Judson and Millington in the "Curse of Fenric" screenplay. ("Happiness Patrol" is another matter entirely -- my wife and I disagree with the Discontinuity Guide on this score! If one goes looking for gay subtexts, one will find them even where they do not exist!) But we should categorically draw the line when the Doctor engages in such behaviour, however fleetingly or ambiguously. Having two men kissing openly on a "gay theme" series, such as the aforementioned Queer as Folk, is one thing, but this show is supposed to be Doctor Who! Is he indeed the same alien portrayed by Pat Troughton or Jon Pertwee?

Russell Davies had a responsibility to all Doctor Who fans -- not just those receptive to his views. This new wrinkle in the Doctor's character almost comes across as a "Trojan Horse," wherein Davies slips his agenda into the Time Lord's persona. I had no quarrel with the Third Doctor's mainstream liberal arguments (as espoused by Malcolm Hulke, Bob Baker & Dave Martin, et. al.), although I felt Barry Letts' New Age affectations could undermine the show's credibility. I loved the series when it took on the fascist right ("Inferno," "The Green Death,") as well as the lunatic fringe ("Operation Golden Age" and even the ridiculous "Robot.") I believe with Russell T. Davies as producer, Doctor Who will continue to drift away from the center. If it is now considered "19th Century" to feel uncomfortable with this new development, then "hail Victoria!"

--157.182.224.244 17:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to discuss this on the article itself. You have sufficient evidence to convince me that this is controversial for at least some minority of Doctor Who viewers.

I, like you, disliked when the t.v. movie had the Doctor kiss Grace Holloway, for the same reasons that you gave. However, given that the line has been crossed, I found nothing controversial in having two men kiss openly. More so because the Doctor did not instigate the kiss iirc. However, I understand that some people may find this difficult to deal with.

However, (and only vaguely relevant to the discussion here), I take issue with your drawing a line at bisexual themes. Is there any evidence that these are actually more controversial now than the Third Doctor's liberal arguments were back then? In other words, this may be more controversial to you but if they are no more controversial than previous issues were at their times, is this really worth writing about in an encyclopedia article? That's a legitimate question for discussion, not a rhetorical question, mind you.

Furthermore, I consider it actually part of the t.v. show's duty to push the limits of what society in general considers acceptable, and to explore moral issues. Obviously, this is entirely my opinion.

Finally, thanks for discussing these topics in the appropriate forum rather than just trying to force your changes on the article. It is refreshing to see someone at least willing to listen to other points of view, and to back up their points with sources. --Yamla 17:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Judson Milligton "interpretation" is that of the author Ian Briggs. RTD has no responsibilty to fans whatsoever, only to make cracking good television. If you don't like it, poor you. Tim! (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive

This page is getting very long so do you think we ought to archive some of it? --Jawr256 18:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the Gay Question section until that is resolved (or people stop caring), so either archive everything but that or wait until things settle down a little. But in general, yes. This page is much too long. --Yamla 18:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)