Talk:The Day of the Doctor/Archive 1

Two infoboxes

If there's "no need for two inboxes", then why does the article on the 1996 Doctor Who film have two infoboxes? Rhain1999 (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be. It did not used to be there. Why are you asking here? — Edokter (talk) — 00:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I couldn't think of where else to ask it? And, as you would know, this article had two infoboxes and one was removed, so I was wondering why this wasn't allowed it and that was. (however, that's been resolved now) Rhain1999 (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Billie as Rose

Can someone confirm if DWM provides a source for Billie Piper playing Rose, as no web-based sources currently do so. If it does, can the citation be changed to DWM accordingly. U-Mos (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Negative, Billy plays an Image of Rose. The weapon that the doctor uses takes her appearance to speak to the New Doctor throughout the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.151.68 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, said image calls herself "Bad Wolf" rather than Rose. 96.226.142.125 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Rose as companion

Also, if Piper is appearing as Rose (see above), is there a source that confirms that she is going to be a companion? She wasn't a companion in The End of Time. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as long as we can source her appearance as Rose (still not sure about that one...) I think it might be OK to have her in the infobox as a companion. She has been announced as starring in the episode, so more than a cameo, and of course plenty of references are calling the character a companion (and a companion of the Tenth Doctor), so it seems the sensible place to list her unless later information suggests otherwise. U-Mos (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in favour of leaving it alone until we know more. ~~ Peteb16 (talk)

It seems she was playing ‘The moment’ Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there sources calling the character from this special specifically (not previous appearances) a companion, following the broadcast? Everyone thought before the episode was broadcast that she would be playing the actual Rose, so I don't think any sources published beforehand would be valid in this regard because the authors wouldn't have known what they were talking about. Ωphois 19:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Images

I believe we have a problem with the images. They're both copyright and have no rationale for inclusion in this article. I would add one, however I don't believe that, in this case, they conform to WP:NFC. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor

Since it is likely that Tennant will be playing the Doctor clone and not the actual Tenth Doctor, should a distinction be made regarding this since it is a different character? From what I've seen, sources have not confirmed which one he will be portraying. Ωphois 22:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "likely"? And no, a distinction should not be made because there is absolutely no evidence so far that he'll be playing the clone. If anything, it's unlikely that he's not portraying the actual Tenth Doctor. TR-BT (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes much more sense storywise that he will be portraying the clone, and that is what everyone expects. I am not suggesting that we put in the article that he will be playing the clone. My point is that until it is confirmed, it is just as much speculation to say that he will be portraying the Tenth Doctor. Ωphois 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't make more sense storywise since none of us knows what the story is. The default position is that he'll return for the role that he's known for. Please provide a reliable source that shows otherwise. DonQuixote (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

At the moment it's fine because the part that says Tennant is playing the Tenth Doctor is properly sourced and the source states "this will be the first time Tennant has reprised his role as the Tenth Doctor." ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure how to use this. Apologies if I'm doing it wrong. Anyway, everything so far seems to indicate it will be the real 10th Doctor. He's been seen filming with his TARDIS and the clone did not have a TARDIS (a deleted scene from Journeys End suggested he would but it was deleted) and he's been filming in his brown suit. The clone only had the blue suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am the real slim shady (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In the 398th Edition of Doctor Who Magazine, Season 4 producer Russell T. Davies stated that "it is perfectly fine to assume that this part of the (deleted) scene did actually occur."Michaelopolis (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And brown suits are avaliable on parallel Earth, no?81.111.126.82 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder: Regardless of what anyone thinks is going to happen (based on available info or not), we can't include it until it gets a reliable source behind it.

"It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own [...] analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included [...]. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games[ and TV episodes], take special care to avoid [...] unverified claims." —Opening paragraph of WP:SPECULATION

––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 16:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Cast list

Is the "Cast" section really necessary, since it is all covered in the infobox and the "casting" section? Glimmer721 ^talk 00:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad you asked! I didn't think so as its inclusion would be inconsistent with other Doctor Who episode articles, so I removed it. It was then reverted on the basis that this is a film and, as such, should feature a full cast list as a section. Even though it could be argued that Doctor Who (film) doesn't have a separate cast list either, I waited to see if keeping the list turned out to be general consensus. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it again, it definitely should not be in there. See Doctor Who (1996 film) if really desperate for a precedent... U-Mos (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And for that matter, The Five Doctors. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see this. First off, as a movie, the Doctor Who film should have a cast section. As such I added one - having meant to do so for some time and having done so before reading this. Secondly, given that the casting section of this page is REALLY hard to read and follow along, I jiggled things around a bit and put in a cast section. It makes it easier to read and understand what is going on as well as add information as we find out more of what is going on. -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Duration

I'm trying to figure out what our source is for the alleged "feature film length" that is discussed in the lead. The information doesn't seem to come from the inline citation used at the end of the sentence that mentions this information and I can find no sources that provide that information at the moment. Do we know where this came from? I was going to just fact tag it but I always feel weird fact tagging something that is in the lead but not the body of an article (since that's not supposed to happen). Likwise, tagging a small part of a sentence that does have a ref attached to it (but where said ref doesn't actually clear up the fact I want to tag) always seems visually odd to any editors trying to work on the article. So yeah, anyone know the source of the length or can I remove it/tag it? Millahnna (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Coal Hill School and the Junkyard

New filming pics were released here. There isn't a location, so I didn't know if it was worth mentioning in "Filming" or "Plot" (I'm starting to feel that the continuity can be incorporated in the writing section like Remembrance of the Daleks, since this is an anniversary special). Glimmer721 ^talk 18:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Daleks and Cybermen ARE NOT confirmed.

The link stating that the Daleks and Cybermen would return is based on speculation. The article in question is a short interview with the creator of the Zygons, who has no involvement with the 50th whatsoever. His claim that other monsters will appear is pure speculation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.138.207 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote in the article wasn't presented as speculation: "The Zygons are in there with all the others - particularly the Daleks and the Cybermen,". He is involved in the episode insomuch as that the BBC had to seek permission from him to use the Zygons as stated in the article. Therefore he has to have been made aware of some of the episode detail. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That quote is followed by "[But] nobody yet knows what the plot of the 50th will be - Steven Moffat and his team in Cardiff, they are quite rightly keeping it all secret." Furthermore, his following replies suggest he hasn't been involved. The introduction stated clearly he "hinted" their appearance, and as I understand it, Wikipedia doesn't consider speculation (hinting) as reliable. Only official confirmations by the BBC, a showrunner or other people actually involved in producing the show should be used as a source. Just because he was asked by Moffat/BBC to use his creations, doesn't mean he was informed the plot of the episode. Unless stated otherwise, shouldn't this be considered speculation by just one man? David Tennant had hinted several times that he would be involved, but this wasn't considered reliable until it was confirmed by the BBC. So why is it that the speculation of an ex-writer, who hasn't worked on the show in 38 years is considered more reliable then Tennant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.124.60 (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt's Role

John Hurt revealed to the website EDP24 that he is playing a "part of the Doctor" in a trinity including Matt Smith and David Tennant. This seems to synch up with rumors leaked several weeks ago that the twist in the anniversary is that he will be a "forgotten Doctor" set between the official eighth and ninth incarnations

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/john_hurt_launches_sheringham_little_theatre_cinema_campaign_1_2184494 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. R.K.Z (talk • contribs)

Give that they're several refs stating that he plays the doctor it should be in the article although he shouldn't be grouped yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.1.115 (talk • contribs)

He shouldn't be in the Doctors section of the infobox under any circumstance. We follow an out-of-universe perspective, where "the Doctor" refers to the eleven people who have led the series in that role and no one else. Otherwise we'll be putting the Watcher and the Valeyard as Doctors, and that would be ridiculous. U-Mos (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

He was credited both inscreen at the recognition of his face as "The Doctor," and in the closing credits he was also credited as "The Doctor." That should validate the choice to include him in the infobox, until and unless events in the actual production prove otherwise.Michaelopolis (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

He is in the infobox: John Hurt – The Doctor. DonQuixote (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

With the comic con trailer confirming that Hurt is a past Doctor and not some potential spectre type Doctor like the Watcher should he now be in the Doctor box under Smith and Tennant on the article. It's sensible to assume he is the Ninth Doctor unless we're going to say there were more incarnations between him and McGann or some pre-Hartnell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.219.42 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what is sensible is to assume nothing and wait for the episode to air and see what happens in it. Mezigue (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Or we could just go with what sources say rather than deny what is obvious? -- MisterShiney ✉ 09:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Digital Spy
• Radio Times
• Huffington Post -- MisterShiney ✉ 09:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That's already mentioned in the article with cited sources. Anything else (such as he's the 9th Doctor) is speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I put it there this morning. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You can add 5, 10 or 50 articles as sources, they all quote the same costume guy, who may or may not have been telling the truth/known what he was talking about. The production of Doctor Who have a history of manipulating expectations e.g. false start date for Jenna Coleman. Dubious leaks do not belong in there.Mezigue (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you know this is dubious? This is the information we have, and the article reflects that. Stephenb (Talk) 21:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is dubious because it is a leaked rumour rather than a BBC announcement. Mezigue (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a rumour. A member of the production team spoke to a national newspaper, which is what the article says. Please establish a consensus for your view before removing the information again. Stephenb (Talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC) ETA: Rumours have no source, this information does. Stephenb (Talk) 22:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hurt's role is not confirmed. Even if it was, he would only be applicable for the infobox if he was playing a recast of the Eighth or similar. If he's not one of the eleven incarnations who have been the lead character of the show over the years, he stays in the others section. Out-of-universe perspective please. U-Mos (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What a bunch of Tosh! "Out of Universe perspective"? Then use a proper TV Episode template rather than an IN UNIVERSE wikia version. I should also point out that the template guidelines specifically say anyone playing the doctor get's listed as such. Lets look at the evidence shall we.

1) A member of the production team says he is a previous otherwise unknown incarnation between the 9th and 10th.

2) Multiple reliable sources have reported this. If it wasn't reliable, they wouldn't report it, otherwise they wouldn't be reliable sources now would they.

3) The Guardian in this article with says "the first multi-Doctor special, the 10th anniversary episode The Three Doctors". Confirming what was in the last episode that John Hurt was "THE DOCTOR".

It's not rocket science or speculation to list what is being reported. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In your first point "1)", you've put between 9th and 10th, it's 8th and 9th isn't it? But otherwise I completely agree with your points BUT I can also understand opposite points of view, there have been 11 Doctors so some people think it should just be them. The BBC did say John Hurt was The Doctor though so he has to be noted as such so far. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He is noted as playing the Doctor. It says "John Hurt - The Doctor". U-Mos (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, there we go then. The BBC showed him to be the doctor at the end of the last episode so everybody's happy. Problem solved :) Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Film?

What is the source to say that it is a film? It is after all a TV series. The film was just a one off done drastically wrong by our American friends. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC America

Is this being show in United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.135.112.14 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. PS: if you're looking to ask generic questions, you should check out the Reference Desk. ––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 06:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Title

The Title has apparently been released: http://blogtorwho.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/50th-anniversary-titled-revealed.html. 101090ABC (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Y Added. --Rhain1999 (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that on a fair few 'blogs' they are stating that the Title of the 50th Anniversary special has been revealed; but it has of yet to be even mentioned on the official Doctor Who website. Like before with series 7, titles that were not confirmed from a reliable source such as the official Doctor Who website were not to be added. Plus the source to the BBC news (on the main page) doesn't seem to be working. 13thDoctor93 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, the original BBC News article that everyone's sourcing from was taken down - but the genie won't be going back into the bottle, I'm afraid. Everyone's already reposted the information. Shouldn't be hard to source the fact that the original article was taken down, even if it can no longer be used to source the title itself. Would the Radio Times be a suitable substitute? 139.153.86.157 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The original article is now in Google's web cache here. 139.153.86.157 (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I

Just wondered if we need to mention Queen Elizabeth I's previous appearances and mentions in "The Shakespeare Code", "The End of Time" and "The Wedding of River Song", or do we wait and see if there's an actual connection between this episode and the reason the Tenth Doctor is her "sworn enemy"? –anemoneprojectors– 09:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I would attach the list of appearances to a sentence giving her casting credit. Any connection would be added after it airs. (Should be interesting to see what it is!)––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter Davison

Several news sources are today claiming that Peter Davison will be in the 50th Anniversary Episode, while others are only claiming that he's involved with the 50th anniversary but that Davison has not confirmed if it will be in the episode or not.

If you look at their source, all the news sources seem to be using an interview with Davison by BANG Showbiz where he only states "I'm making an appearance somewhere over that period of time but I can't reveal in what." ... note that in the quote used as a source, he's not stating that he is in the episode, only that he's making an appearance over that time frame, and not saying in what he is appearing.

So, what is consensus of mention in this article? Sources are making a claim of him being in the episode, but their source appears to tie out to other sources that say it's not confirmed. Do we mention it here? If so, do we state that there's conflicting reports? Or do we omit it for now as not officially confirmed rumors? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As you've pointed out, all we really have is one source that says he'll be involved in the celebration and not the episode per se. The other sources are interpreting this as him being in the episode. We should probably wait for another reliable source to mention his connection, if any, with the episode. DonQuixote (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Peter Davison along with Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy and Colin Baker have been confirmed to star in a spoof of "The Five Doctors" on 23rd November on BBC Red Button. It is called The Five(ish) Doctors or Fish Dr. I think we should put it in the article, but my question is where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably best in Doctor Who (2013 specials)#50th Anniversary. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Shouldn't we apply pending changes to this article? This page has gotten steady vandalism whenever some new piece of info comes out and we all know it's going to get steadily worse, peaking at the airdate then decreasing the two more months.—Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 05:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

criticism of casting choices

not sure why the following was deleted, but anywho-this seems pretty reasonable. Its true, verifiable and relavent.

Criticism of casting decisions

− There has been criticism by at least one of the actors who portrayed the Doctors in the original series that they have been ignored and not included in the 50th anniversary events, or parts thereof

− Colin Baker, who portrayed the 6th incarnation of the Doctor between 1984 and 1986 has stated that he and other former stars are not 'deemed worthy enough' of inclusion, being considered 'surplus baggage'.

− He went on to say

− "I'm not in it. I can say that Peter Davison isn't because I've seen him recently. And I can tell you that Sylvester McCoy isn't, and neither is Paul McGann.

− "None of us have been deemed worthy of inclusion in a programme that celebrates 50 years of a British television programme, of which I was in it for three. We are surplus baggage," — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Colin Baker later clarified on Twitter that his comments had been taken out of context by news sites, he was just joking, and wasn't expecting to do the 50th anyway. I really think that should be added. --Shadoman (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Billie piper

Do we know Billie is portraying Rose Tyler? Have ANY sources confirmed this, or is this an assumption based on her previous role in the series? 86.156.102.168 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Its arguably a totally reasonable and uncontestable assumption based on the fact that she is in the trailers with original dialogue, and BBC America, a subsidiary of the BBC themselves, confirmed her involvement. http://screenrant.com/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-david-tennant-billie-piper-rose-return/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Night of The Doctor

Shouldn't there be a reference to the minisode 'Night of The Doctor' possibly in the 'other anniversary celebrations' part as it explains the backstory of a central character in the 'Day of The Doctor' which is John Hurt (War Doctor)? 84.92.164.36 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

See The Name of the Doctor and others where prequels are described in the plot section. DonQuixote (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The use of Paul McGann in 'The Night of the Doctor' conflicts with the quote from Colin Baker stating that Paul McGann would not feature in the 50th Anniversary. Big Mac (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not conflict. Colin Baker was talking about The Day of the Doctor specifically, not about 50th anniversary activity in general. Paul McGann was in The Night of the Doctor (the prequel, not the 50th anniversary special itself). So, technically, Colin Baker's comments are still valid at this point. Any speculation that any of the classic era doctors are in The Day of the Doctor at this point is still opinion and original research unless a published reliable source can be found to state otherwise.

Note, I'm not saying that Colin Baker's statement is or is not true - only that at this time, nothing technically actually contradicts it. That could change later - but at this point, saying anything else is speculation and guess work. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Length

Since this is about 77 minutes (and my DVR says it's 80), are there going to be commercials, or is it going to run straight through? 50.160.123.66 (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a formal announcement for this, so mention in the article would be original research at this point. But, since it's simulcast world-wide, and commercials are not broadcast during programs on BBC One, I'm guessing no commercials on the initial international broadcast as well. Note also that in the USA the initial broadcast is scheduled for an 80 minute long time-slot, and when it gets re-broadcast a few hours later (no longer simulcast), it's on the schedule for a full 120 minute time-slot - something needs to fill that extra 40 minutes, and I'm guessing commercials will be at least some of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BBC America has advertised that they're going to run it without commercials. DonQuixote (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The BBC allow for two to three minutes between programmes to show trailers and announcements. For example a half-hour show is always 28 minutes long. I am pleased for you based in the US that the initial broadcast will not be segmented. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My recording says 1:16:42. Dsalt (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible article split?

Not sure if this has already been discussed ...

Should the section currently titled #Other anniversary celebrations be broken out into its own article at Doctor Who 50th Anniversary? (that target page currently redirects back to here)

I can see arguments both for splitting out the section (as The Day of the Doctor is only one element of the overall 50th anniversary celebration), as well as arguments for keeping them together (as The Day of the Doctor itself symbolizes the overall 50th anniversary event). I just wanted to discuss to ensure where consensus exists for this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind - I see another editor has already removed the section with an edit summary stating that it was redundant to the already existing article Doctor Who (2013 specials). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Broadcasted in New Zealand

Hi, I note that it says that it is not being simulcasted in New Zealand which is not quite true. The special will be aired twice on Sunday 24/11/2013 on Prime at midday (which is 11pm, 23/11 in London) and 9am (which is 8pm, 23/11 in London). So while there will be a possible ten minute delay does this not denote that New Zealand is actually part of the simulcast or does the ten minute delay mean its not simulcasted? I've included a link to the TV station that will be airing it showing both times of the Day of the Doctor in case you needed proof. (http://www.primetv.co.nz/Portals/0/DoctorWho/index.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.129.237 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that ten minutes difference doesn't really make much of a difference. There was surely a few minutes, or seconds, difference in quite a few countries, though this doesn't affect the fact that it was simulcast. If it was an hour (or even half an hour) later, then it would be a different story, of course. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom Baker

He confirmed himself he would be in The Day of the Doctor but people keep reverting the edits, why? The sources are accurate, it came from Baker himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, they find the one-and-only source (Huffington Post article) a little questionable and request other independent sources to corroborate the story. DonQuixote (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should just wait until tomorrow and then edit accordingly. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On Australian Breakfast Show, Studio 10, they interviewed Peter Davison, who said that Tom Baker probably shouldn't have revealed that he was in the 50th. Im not sure if that does anything to confirm Baker's appearence, although it sounded like Davison was fully aware of who was in the 50th and who wasn't.

All the doctors was in it Tom had some diolouge with 11 at the end then it shows us all 12 doctors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.149.108 (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Tom Baker did appear (which was a nice treat), but you must note that, prior to the release of the episode, we could not trust any source other than the BBC themselves, when referring to things as big as Tom Baker's reprisal. The same thing goes for all future episodes of Doctor Who. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Why has Baker been removed from The Doctors section. If anybody watched it, it implies that the Curator is the Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpreting what a primary source implies is original research. We need a secondary source to make that connection for us. DonQuixote (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 November 2013

The word "program" has been misspelled as "programme". 69.125.204.113 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: "programme" is the correct spelling in British English (except when referring to computer programs). --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberman

The Cyberman's head which is visible in the Black Archive appears to be the same one which was used for Webley's chess game in Nightmare in Silver. The pattern of damage appears identical; the same parts are missing. Dsalt (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot section's lack of content

The episode aired multiple hours ago. We should have more about the plot than just a few sentences describing the opening. Ian01 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way however the episode actually completed airing 3 hours and 25 minutes ago. Personally I'm not expecting any Wikipedia editor to come up with a non-plagiarised summary THAT quickly. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Especially as when writing about fiction on Wikipedia, the focus should be on the real-world information, not the details of the plot. –anemoneprojectors– 00:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are people working on it. Please be patient. I wouldn't be surprised if it took a few days to write the plot; it is complicated, and there are rules to be followed. Give it a few hours, at least. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"A few days"? Really now.. :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said it would definitely take a few days, but Ian01 was being a little impatient. I figured somebody would do it within a few hours, but just in case somebody didn't, I wrote that "I wouldn't be surprised if it took a few days," just to reassure him that patience equals perfection. :) -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 03:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Map of Broadcasts

No idea how to edit the map or I'd do it - it was broadcast on TV, available on catch up TV on the web AND shown in Cinemas in Australia. Berym (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I can edit the map if need be, but it was only broadcast on television in Australia at 6:50am AEDT (7:50pm GMT). I understand it's on iView, and it has been shown in cinemas in Australia, but as far as I'm aware the first cinema screening in Australia was at 11am. The map denotes simultaneous screenings - meaning at the exact same time. I thought of editing the map to say the same thing just the other day, but then I realised that it wasn't a simultaneous screening between TV and cinemas. :) -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Cast Lists

Listing all the Doctors saying cameo isn't really correct. The only one of the older Doctor's to physically appear in a cameo was Tom Baker. All others were old clips of pictures. This needs clarification in the text.2.127.84.198 (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference between people appearing in person and in previous archive footage or pictures does need to be treated differently in my opinion. At the moment the section lacks clarity and gives the impression they all appeared in person.Blethering Scot 22:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, however, that all the Doctors appear in such a way as they participate in the actual story itself. This is different from flashbacks or "name-dropping". 68.146.70.124 (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Archive footage should not be listed. It wasn't on The Eleventh Hour.Mezigue (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

They appear in old photo's or short archive footage. Yes added in a way so they were part of the story but they did not specifically film or take part in the movie. Apart from Tom Baker, Matt Smith and David Tennant none of the original doctor's filmed anything for the episode. Whatever way its done it has to make that clear. Baker filmed a cameo yes, but the others didn't. No one said they name dropped but in reality they were kind of flashbacks as it was old footage, however thats irrelevant. The accurate thing would be to remove all but baker and replace with sentence saying all Doctor's appeared / formed part of story using archived footage.Blethering Scot 22:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Best solution would be to say: All other Doctor's appeared as part of the story using archive photo's and footage. We shouldn't be giving the impression they were part of the film's cast and filmed for it.Blethering Scot 23:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

But they were all listed in the cast... –anemoneprojectors– 23:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Were as actual cast, not stating they weren't actually part of the cast but appear using archived footage. There is a major difference.Blethering Scot 23:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That was a courtesy gesture, I think. Mezigue (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say absolutely mention somewhere that all Doctor actors except Capaldi were credited, but the infobox should only list those that physically appeared. U-Mos (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with U-Mos. I was only stating a fact before, not saying that they should all be listed as cast in the infobox. –anemoneprojectors– 00:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see that there is an edit war going on involving the cast order. Since Matt Smith is the star of the show and received first billing in the opening credits, I would suggest his name go first, regardless of any other factor. Since David Tennant received second billing, he should go second, regardless. John Hurt should go third as he is the only other Doctor in the opening credits. The other Doctors I would slug with something like "Archive Footage" save for Capaldi. Sir Rhosis (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I & The Moment Interface/Bad Wolf

Isn't Queen Elizabeth I the Tenth Doctor's companion? And is the Moment Interface/Bad Wolf the War Doctor/Warrior's companion? 108.246.48.79 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I is equivalent to Madame De Pompadour in "The Girl in the Fireplace"; she does not travel in the TARDIS, but is more or less a love interest to the Doctor. Billie Piper's character has a similar role; she doesn't travel in the TARDIS with the Doctor, she only accompanies him (even without his choice, really). Neither of them really reach the standards of a companion, in my opinion, though I do see where you're coming from. :) -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Location of the Queen Elizabeth "forest" scenes?

Can anyone confirm the location of the Queen Elizabeth "forest" scenes (the ones just after the shots taken in the vicinity of Chepstow Castle near the start). I have my suspicions but don't want to create any issues if I am wrong since it is on private land (that has been used before for other television work).

Chepstow Castle features quite a bit in this episode, and it is a good choice for the wedding scene since it is quite private (not overlooked) when the gates are closed. --78.105.233.249 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

References

I'm not much into editing articles, so I'm dropping a list of references here in case someone else wishes to add them:
- Kate Stewart's first line is, "the ravens are looking a bit slow." In, "The Power of Three," she remarks (supposedly as a joke) that she has ravens of death
- Osgood trips the Zygon impersonating her by using her scarf in a similar manner to the 4th Doctor in his first story, "Robot"
- The 10th Doctor tells the 11th, "You've redecorated. I don't like it." The 11th uses the same line in "Closing Time".
The 2nd Doctor makes a similar comment about a later incarnation's TARDIS in the multi-Doctor story "The Five Doctors". - Tennant's last line in the special, "I don't want to go," is also his previous last line as the 10th Doctor in the second part of "The End of Time". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.169.170 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) -There are more references than you think. Someone who is very specialized in Doctor Who should fine tooth comb this episode. 173.18.208.35 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox cast list

As you may be able to see from the recent edit history, another editor and I have been having a bit of an edit war. Firstly, I'd like to apologise for this - I don't normally take part in edit wars. To the point, this edit war is about the order in which the Doctors should be listed in the infobox. As you can see here, a short consensus was reached in which we only include Smith, Tennant and Hurt in the "Doctors" section of the Cast, and Tom Baker in the "Others" section, since Doctors 1-3, 5-8 & 9 were only in the episode via archived footage (and have very little screen time), and therefore should not be included in the infobox (despite them being credited, though this is likely a "courtesy gesture").

This particular editor is refusing to comply to this, and simply wants to list all Doctors from Hartnell to Capaldi (including Hurt) in the infobox, in order. When I tried reorganising it so that it was: Smith, Tennant, Hurt, T. Baker, and then Hartnell to Capaldi, the editor disagreed with this and reverted my edits multiple times, despite the fact that I gave (in my opinion) good reasons. We need to reach a consensus on this; Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Davison, C. Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston and Capaldi all only make small cameos, with Capaldi's cameo being the only new footage. Therefore, they either belong after Smith, Tennant, Hurt, T. Baker, or they don't belong in the infobox at all. Can we please come up with a consensus about this? Thanks guys. :) -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think that Hartnell—Eccleston should not be included because, as mentioned, they onky appeared in the form of archive footage. However, Capaldi's appearance was notable both as original footage and Capaldi's first appearance in Doctor Who. I also think that Tom Baker should be credited as the Curator, as the dialog makes it explicit that Baker is portraying a future, retired incarnation of the Doctor who is reusing the voice and face of the Fourth Doctor. In the infobox, Capaldi's appearance should proabably be detonated (uncredited cameo). Goodsmudge^(Talk) 11:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly fair to not inclue all the Doctors when they were all credited as The Doctor in the end credits. It's incorrect to exclude solely based on it just being archive footage. They were credited. Rusted AutoParts 13:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• As a comparison, for The Five Doctors we have both T Baker and Hartnell listed in the infobox, despite both only appearing as archive footage, presumably on the grounds that they are credited along with the others. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Peter Capaldi appeared for a grand total of about 3 seconds; whether it was original rather than archive footage is neither here nor there. It is NOT a story that "features" the Twelfth Doctor; if you include him in the infobox, then you must by extension include all of the others, especially as they were all credited at the end. Hammersfan (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Agree very silly to include Peter C in the infobox, the top of his head was shown for 2 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.40.152 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I also agree about Capaldi. (The actual duration was more like one half of a second!) Mezigue (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I've removed Capaldi for exactly this reason, plus unlike Hartnell et al. he wasn't even credited. - Chrism would like to hear from you 09:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• As I said at the other entry, list them in the infobox in order: Matt Smith, David Tennant, John Hurt. The others really don't need to be there. It is already mentioned in the article that the others appear via Archive Footage. This really is silly of the other editor to cram all 13 into the infobox. Sir Rhosis (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Although everyone here is making excellent points, with most of the Doctors only having archive footage, I feel as though what Chrism said makes a lot of sense, in comparison. On The Five Doctors page, William Hartnell and Tom Baker are listed, though they both only appear for a matter of seconds through the use of archive footage. Therefore, it's not an entirely stupid idea to include all of the Doctors in the infobox. In my honest opinion, I would like to have all of the Doctors in the infobox, but of course it all depends on what this discussion comes to as a conclusion. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say it was improper to credit Hartnell and Baker on that page in that manner, then. I honestly feel this is a "Cut and dry"/"Period. End of sentence, end of discussion" type issue. Though that sounds harsh, I'm not casting aspersions on others' opinions, I'm really not. This is all in the spirit of "getting it right" for me, and will be my last statement on the issue. Best. Sir Rhosis (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't think they should be included in the infobox if only archive footage is used. The reason they're being credited on-screen in the first place is because of the 50th anniversary celebration. They also appeared in archive footage in "The Name of the Doctor" but weren't included. I think the same should apply to this. Ωphois 22:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Baker in that case is slightly less cut-and-dried, as while the material used wasn't specifically shot for The Five Doctors, it was unused material shot for the cancelled Shada, and is more than just a few seconds but actual complete scenes which are integral to the narrative, as opposed to "LOOK IT'S A TOM BAKER CAMEO, THIS IS AWESOME". - Chrism would like to hear from you 09:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Continuity (A dandy and a clown!)

Dandy links to 2nd Doctor & clown to 3rd, shouldn't it be the other way around? Swamp 101.175.3.115 (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Good spot, changed. - Chrism would like to hear from you 10:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Eyes

About 7 minutes in, after the lines "He was there" "Who?" "Me", one pair of eyes morph into another. Whose are they? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt's/the War Doctor's eyes. — Edokter (talk) — 19:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nature of 3d painting

It would help the plot section, without going on too long in it, to briefly reference early on that 3d paintings are actually a form of Time Lord art: the paintings are not just a representation but an actual event, a frozen instant in time. This is important in several parts of the story: they are how the Zygons hide and wait until Earth is suitable for invasion; they are how the three Doctors get into the secure area of UNIT to defeat the Zygons;and freezing one instance in time in a parallel universe is what the Doctor does when he and his incarnations "time lock" Gallifrey to save it from the Daleks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.254.40 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In the section on Continuity with the dating controversy and the Brigadier: Kate Lethbridge-Stewart refers to a file titled "Cromer", a direct reference to the Bridadier's belief in The Three Doctors that an anti-matter Universe is in fact the beach of Cromer, Norfolk . Cycnus (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the filming section, the text currently reads:

From 4–5 May 2013, Paul McGann returned to Doctor Who alongside John Hurt's War Doctor, to record The Night of the Doctor.

This is contradicted in the article on The Night of the Doctor which suggests that the footage of Hurt was archive footage, and therefore he did not film alongside McGann. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done John Hurt did appear however CGI was used to make the War Doctor look like his younger self. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Link is wrong

The link to "Voyage of the Damned" is incorrect and points to an unrelated film. It should go to "Voyage_of_the_Damned_(Doctor_Who)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.195.224 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. DonQuixote (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Baker & Capaldi as Doctor

Should Baker and Capaldi be listed as 4th and 12th Doctors respectively in the info box. Capaldi filmed new content especially for the 50th, credited or not, and the same with Baker.

Baker, whether creddited as the Doctor or not, should be listed as he is playing some incarnation of the Doctor, future or not. If he is "revisiting old faces" surely he has regenerated back to the 4th doctor? --Contributer111 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Baker, in non-archive footage, is ambiguous as to who he's playing. Capaldi isn't credited, and plays a much smaller role than one of the Tudor guards, but we wouldn't put them in the infobox. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Timing of "Day of the Doctor" and "The End of Time"

In the continuity section, it is stated that "the freezing of Gallifrey sets up the events in The End of Time". Do we have any official confirmation for this? I personally perceive the events of The End of Time as taking place before those in The Day of the Doctor, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there is the remark by one of the Time Lords on Arcadia: "The actions of the High Council have failed" (or something along those lines), which possibly refers to these events. Secondly, the freezing of time end the Time War and secures the Gallifrey from the Daleks, meaning that a) the Time Lords would have no need to destroy time, b) probably wouldn't be able to do so (as they would be frozen) and c) they wouldn't be wanting to stop the Doctor from using the Moment when this (non-)event has already taken place. Now all of this is just circumstantial evidence, because there are no direct indications of when either event takes place relatively to the other. Because of the vagueness and complicatedness of the matter, and the absence of direct reference, I think the line in the Conitunity section should either be backed up with a reference or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.97.90 (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Day of the doctor took place after. 10th Doctor talks about Elizabeth in the end of time. Rassilon talks about escaping from the Time Lock which is after Day of the doctor. You are wrong, watch the DVD to understand it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs2050wiki (talk • contribs) 13:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the entire war was timelocked, not just Gallifrey, and that was the lock Rassilon was speaking of escaping. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Kate Stewart - link to character description

Shouldn't Kate Stewart have a link to her character article ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UNIT_personnel#Kate_Stewart

On the same basis as other characters have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.107.3 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting that. DonQuixote (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

reference to 'national museum' in plot summary

The 'under gallery' is clearly located under the National Gallery. You can even see red banners with 'National Gallery' on them so it is silly not to credit it as the National Gallery rather than as the 'National Museum' (which links to a list of international national museums)

There is no museum in the UK with the title of 'National Museum'

Also in the second last and last paragraphs there are further references to 'museum' when it should be gallery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.107.3 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And to add to this which strengthens the need for a change in the 'publicity' section it quotes from a BBC synopsis

"The Doctors embark on their greatest adventure in this 50th anniversary special. In 2013, something terrible is awakening in London’s National Gallery; in 1562 ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.107.3 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Continuity, yet again

The lion's share of the information in this section needs to be referenced to reliable sources. Since Doctor Who is as popular as it is, finding those sources should not be that difficult. Remember, we as editors are not allowed to find and/or make these connections. They MUST come from a third party. I'll wait about a week and, if this section isn't better represented by references, I'll likely be trimming any uncited statements from the section. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should ruthlessly tag them with {{cn}} and then give it a few days before culling the section to the bits we can find sources for?Zythe (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure some can be found in reviews (which I personally would prefer to stay away from; I'm changing my editing habits), but here is a list of 13 references I found. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There's some pretty serious OR/SYNTH going on there, yeah--accurate, I don't doubt, but not in line with the rules. JJL (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Consistency between the credits in the actual episode and the credits in this article

All 13 actors that portrayed The Doctor (including Hurt and Capaldi) are listed in the credits under "Doctor". Shouldn't the article reflect that on some level? Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Save for the fact that Capaldi wasn't credited I agree. --2601:C:4380:50:D08D:1B6A:AF16:48AE (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is mentioned in the body of the article that all cameoed. Sir Rhosis (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• It was decided they don't count as they were just featured in archive footage. Unfair in my opinion, but that's the consensus. Rusted AutoParts 14:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• To quote the appropriate MoS: "Please keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time." Am I missing something or are we supposed to follow protocol and stay true to the on-screen credits? Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Is there anyone who objects to applying MoS by listing the credits as they appeared in the episode? Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• We are following opening credits here. Smith, Tennant, Hurt were listed. And the others are mentioned in the body of the article. Sir Rhosis (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom Baker and various speculations

It's pretty darn obvious that the exchange between Baker and Smith at the end of the episode is nothing more than a signature for that "love letter to the fans", much like in Time Crash. He's not "hinting about being some kind of future incarnation", he's saying "maybe I was you" as Tom Baker, the actor, who through several others eventually passed the Olympic torch to Matt Smith, and they both fondly reminisce about his days as the Fourth Doctor through the fourth wall. Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

While that's probably true metatextually, the story as broadcast does mention that the Doctor could "revisit" some older faces. Of course it's never precisely stated that he is the future Doctor, simply because it traps the storyline, but within the story itself it's fairly clear that the curator is hinting not that he is the fourth Doctor, but a future one that manages to go back to an older-looking variant of his fourth incarnation. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Two possibilities (or components of the same solution) - the program the War Doctor set up reached its solution , and the point at which the picture 'Gallifrey Falls/No More' enters the Under-Gallery occur during the time of the Fourth Doctor - so 'the Curator' avatar is created in a parallel universe split: and when the events of The Day of the Doctor occur they merge again.

But such speculation is best carried on elsewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

YES. ABSOLUTELY. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

John Guilor

There is currently a content dispute over the listing of John Guilor in the infobox, so I wanted to start a discussion where the mention can be resolved by all interested editors.

The user adding this individual to the user box is using the source [1]. That ref has a passing mention of the individual: "One of the biggest surprises smuggled in to the production was our first example (thanks to the vocal talents of John Guilor) of William Hartnell’s first Doctor getting to say the name “Gallifrey”" According to {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}, the "guest" section is intended "for (special) guest stars, including top billing but not companions."

What is community consensus on the inclusion of this individual in the infobox? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Don't Include My feeling is the infobox should be used to list the episode's stars and major guest stars. I would put his name elsewhere. Deserves credit, but not there. Consensus was reached to put the archival footage doctors elsewhere --Guilor's contribution was even less than theirs. Sir Rhosis (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• No inclusion - as per Sir Rhosis. - Chrism would like to hear from you 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a television episode. But it's also a film

"The Day of the Doctor" was shown on various television stations as a television episode. But it was also shown in cinemas. Although it didn't gross as much as a big blockbuster (TDotD grossed less than 1% of The Avengers' worldwide gross, for example), it has grossed sufficiently to garner its own Box Office Mojo page and Rotten Tomatoes page, even if only rudimentary ones.
So. Should we add categories like "2013 in British film", "British films", "British 3D films" to this page? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No, imo. It's a tv show episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a tv episode. But it's also a film. (see here, here, here). Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Its a TV show. iTunes sell it as a TV show. (albeit at an inflated price, Bastards).--JOJ ^Hutton 05:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The name of the picture

...logically can only become 'Gallifrey falls no more' once the Doctors actually work out how to put the planet into stasis. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC) (corrected slightly)

But it's not. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

?

The picture has two by-names before the Doctors put their sonic screwdrivers together and come up with a solution - Gallifrey has fallen/is no more: once the solution has been arrived at, the planet has no longer fallen. And I was using stasis in 'the colloquial SF sense' - though Gallifrey is probably making use of whichever bit of the multiverse Castle Brass in The History of the Runestaff formerly occupied. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)