Talk:The End of Time (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Harriet Jones

According to this source (which I'm not sure is reliable; probably ought to investigate that first), Harriet Jones was supposed to be in this episode. I honestly cannot remember seeing her (which would make sense; she's dead), but I was wondering if anyone else did. NW (Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the fault of IMDB. There's no point in her returning, either; her story is definitively and satisfyingly over after dying. Same with Martha and Mickey (freelancing as alien hunters), Donna and co (married and rich), and Rose (with Handy in the parallel universe). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In use

Please don't edit when the {{in use}} template is there!!! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you placed that template on the article when myself and two other anonymous users were editing the article? NW (Talk) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the your edits were done. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Run-ons

I feel that there are many run-ons in this article. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Time Lock (End of Time Part 2)

Re Part 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time#Part_Two

"The President, vowing to not let himself die, places Gallifrey and many other terrors in a "Time Lock". "

That is not correct... The Lord President did not place Gallifrey in a Time Lock. The whole Time War was already in a Time Lock, as established by various previous episodes of New Who.

Furthermore, why on Earth would the Lord President place Gallifrey in a Time Lock, only to then come up with a convoluted means of escaping said same Time Lock? If there were no Time Lock initially, the Time Lords would simply have escaped already, avoiding their death at the hands of the Doctor, rather than put themselves in a lock and then try & find a way out of it.

The whole point was that they (in fact the whole Time War) were already trapped within a Time Lock, and needed a way to escape it (after the Visionary said that it was the last day of the war & the Doctor would burn them all). Hence sending the drum-beat signal back to the Master as a child, & then sending the diamond through to create a more physical link.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO your explanation makes sense. Try watching tha part again? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted back to an older version of that paragraph, but it needs some rewording. Anyone want to propose a draft version here? NW (Talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that version's any better really - it still states that the Lord President created the Time Lock, which is simply not correct, but it also goes back to saying that the Master sacrificed himself for the Doctor (he didn't - he did it as a last act of revenge, not a sacrifice to save the Doctor. I think there's already Talk for this, & I'm sure RTD said it was revenge).

It's late now, but I'll have a think tomorrow about re-wording the Time Lock section if no one else has done it.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done an edit now.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the editing of the section in question... I have no problem with people editing my edit for the sake of brevity, but if people want to make it shorter & more to the point, could they please at least keep it accurate, rather than reverting to incorrect earlier versions? As mentioned above, the Lord President did *not* create the Time Lock. The whole Time War was already trapped in it, as mentioned in the episode, and as mentioned in earlier episodes. The Lord President was trying to find a way to *escape* the Time Lock. It is utterly illogical that he would put Gallifrey and "other terrors" inside a Time Lock himself only to then come up with a convoluted plan to escape said same Time Lock. If there were no Time Lock to begin with, the President & other Time Lords would simply have used more normal means to escape their death at the hands of the Doctor, they would no trap themselves & then try & find a way out of their own trap. Watch the episode again, it's on iPlayer.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And is this really a flashback or a meanwhile? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO it's a "meanwhile", not a flashback. It's a timetravel show... The Time Lord Council scenes on Gallifrey are happening at the same time as the present-day Earth scenes. It's all at the same time.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But the current version of the article imply it is a flashback! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah true. I did change that on one of my earlier edits, must have forgotten to do it last time. I see you've changed it now.

btw, I think it should still mention *why* they urgently want to escape the Time Lock... as they (rightly) fear the Doctor is going to destroy them all as well as the Daleks.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Brevity question

I was wondering if, and one will pardon the expression, as times goes on, the Plot section will get more detail. I understand this is an encyclopaedia and not a fan site, but considering the major elements involved (the Master, Time Lords, last Tennant episode for a few), it would seem to benefit from more detail. Certainly the whole Time Lock thing would benefit from expansion. In watching the article evolve (and my apologies, as since I started typing this it seems the ending of Part 2 has gotten a bit more added), it seems some things have been unduly compressed, such as the restoration of the Master.

Again, I do understand the nature of this site, and that you folk are very kind in giving your time and effort to work on this. I, and many others who never say it, do owe a lot to you all. Hopefully this request will be accepted and acted upon.

Grazie mille LMB02 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And since I posted this, the expansion on the companions is again gone... I saw the revision comment that removed them said they should be in the Continuity section, but I thought I read earlier on this discussion page that Continuity sections were to be brief, if used at all. LMB02 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Plot section is still way way too long - have people read Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary at all? Etrigan (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Presence of UNIT

In Part Two, a number of the Master's copies are shown to be personnel at UNIT Headquarters, Geneva - this is explicitly stated in the character dialogue. Therefore, should The End of Time be considered a minor appearance by UNIT, and added to the appropriate template to be included at the base of the article? SuperMarioMan (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, UNIT did you appear, did they? The Master appeared at the UNIT HQ but no one of UNIT itself was shown. I don't think that's a appearance. Regards SoWhy 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OR and Primary sources

Tagged with WP:OR and Concerns about dependency on primary sources, due to issue raised in above subsection about Continuity section. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did this need a new section? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of the tags added to the top of the article. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it needed a whole new section, given that it is entirely dependent on, caused by and related to the section above. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You disagree that I don't see why it needed a whole new section? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate to have a section to explain the necessity of the tags. The above section is for discussion of why the material should not be there at all, in the first place. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuity section

I just checked all the featured articles on episodes for Doctor Who, at Category:FA-Class Doctor Who articles. None of them have such a Continuity subsection, and certainly none of them have info on continuity that is uncited. I have trimmed out the uncited portions from this article, but really the whole subsection should just be deleted, or perhaps modeled after the featured article, Doomsday (Doctor Who). Cirt (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Continuity" is a mistitle, and it admittedly needs some major reworking. But that's OK. The material that you want deleted is an important part of the episode's plot (took up about a third of the run-time, if I remember rightly) and contains elements significant to the whole continuity of post-2005 "New Who". It is all based on the episode, and on past episodes; if this isn't made clear by the citations, I'll try to work on it later tonight if I get time, or tomorrow otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is wholly inappropriate for this page, it is not a subsection standard on featured articles for this topic. If it is essential to the plot, it is not already in the Plot subsection for some reason. It should be removed, as wholly uncited material. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that at all. The section covers a vital part of the plot. If you think it should be moved into the "Plot" section, go ahead. Or I'll deal with it later, like I said I would. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over edit-conflicts

Why did this need a new section? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a dup post to user's same exact post in below subsection. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my mistake. Loads of edit-conflicts. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We could rewrite it and put it in the plot as such:

After he tells Wilf he is going to "get [his] reward" before his regeneration, the episode shows a series of vignettes that show him encounter his previous companions and their families: saving Martha and Mickey from a Sontaran; saving Sarah Jane's son Luke from being run down by a car; setting up Captain Jack with Alonso Frame from the 2007 special "Voyage of the Damned"; attending a book signing of Verity Newman's A Journal of Impossible Things, recounting a human Doctor's dreams of time travel and his relationship to Verity's grandmother in "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood"; giving Donna a winning lottery ticket [bought using money borrowed from Donna's deceased Dad] as a wedding present; and finally, visiting Rose on 1 January 2005 and telling her she is "going to have a great year".

And then dovetail back into the regeneration. It needs rewriting for prose, but it at least contains OR (the only OR being the assumption that the lottery ticket is a winner, and it's so obvious it is that we might get away with saying it is), and we cut down the size of these horrible continuity sections. We could also move Donna's recollections to the plot and just say "she starts to remember events from her travels with the Doctor during the fourth series", and move the Rassilon reappearance/fanwankery to the writing section. All we'll have left is a few offhand lines which we can similarly integrate or else remove if they're not relevant to the episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the references to Human Nature, the Sycorax etc. in the bar, "My Angel Put the Devil in Me" etc. should all be mentioned; this is all part of RTD's climax, and I think it's all relevant. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 20:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was them using everything they've got in the computer to populate the bar, like they intended for the Shadow Proclamation for "The Stolen Earth". Sceptre ^(talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree (for once) with Cirt's comment below, but what I meant was that this was very much a "Carnival of the Animals" in effect, with all the past companions, past monsters etc., and their presence all in one episode is notable IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The companions have a purpose—one which we can cite—in the episode. However, the monsters in the bar do not. It's simple crowd multiplication and we shouldn't take it as anything more significant without a source. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should stress their significance; however, their presence en masse is clearly unusual and sourced, and readers reading (our basic audience) may well wish to know which creatures were present. I don't suggest anything more than is currently included in the article... is there anything wrong with it? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not common sense at all; I mean, in my opinion, it's another shout-out to Star Wars in an episode which had plenty. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: We should rely on secondary sources to determine what is or is not relevant, not the opinions of individual Wikipedians. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A better way to consider this is that if we're going to have the last moments of the Doctor with former companions as plot, they should be described in a plot-only manner (and with just a bit more about Verity since she's not immediately recognizable). The elements about which monsters were at the bar, etc. are "continuity", they aren't necessary to the plot (though by calling the bar an "extraterrestial bar" , that implies aliens are there). Now the information that's moved to continuity is the type that, judging from Stolen Earth and other featured DW episodes, will be able to be worked into a production section (like a statement from RTD saying "Hey, I wanted to have this Star Wars Cantana-like scene") so it will be fine. As long as we are not engaging in speculation in this (eg, if RTD didn't say Tom was Martha's rebound, we'd not be able to include that fact), then there's no problems with developing this section now to relocate things in the future. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

International broadcast dates in lead

At the risk of sounding like a Little Englander, are the US, Canada or anywhere else's broadcast dates really relevant to the lead? When it was first shown in the UK seems relevant as it was the world premiere, but adding in every other country it gets shown in just seems like clogging up the lead with excess detail to me. Surely this sort of information would be better suited to the dedicated broadcast section later in the article? Otherwise you get to the point of asking why are some countries' showings mentioned in the lead and not others? "Because it's the first time such showings have been soon after the UK showings", some will say. Fine, but this is detail that can be included and expanded and explained in said broadcast section. Angmering (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with this. I think the BBC broadcast date is relevant in the lead, and other dates should be lower in the article. Teekno (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. As nobody else commented, I have gone ahead and made the change for now. Angmering (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor's Mother

Hi everyone, I'm not too wiki-savvy so I don't know how to do footnotes. But the source for the bit about the woman in white being the Doctor's mother is from the End of Time Part 2 commentary (01/01/2010) and is said by Julie Gardner. --207.81.124.241 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

She says that's who she thinks it is, but that's quite far from being a confirmation. Davies, on the same commentary, does not confirm or deny it. Angmering (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source of this commentary you mention? I assume it cannot be a DVD commentary since the episodes has only be broadcast on television and I'm not clear what you mean. Was it from Doctor Who confidential? Last I checked someone had removed the mention of Julie Gardner saying it was the Doctor's mother. You might want to restore it and rephrase it to better establish the credibilty of the source and where others can find this information and verify it for themselves, something like "Executive producer Julie Gardner" said in her commentary on (the DVD/the radio/Doctor Who Confidential/Whatever it was). Thanks. -- Horkana (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember any comment about the woman in any of the two confidentials that accompany the episode, so could you elaborate, to which commentary you refer to and maybe even the approx. time when it's said? Regards SoWhy 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to this in Doctor Who Confidential. Can someone please locate the source of the comment? 69.127.156.131 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment comes from the commentary that was broadcast on BBC7 and made available to UK users on the BBC's Doctor Who website, here. Since I'm not in the UK, I can't check to find out the time in the commentary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one who didn't think she was the Doctor's mother but rather assumed she was a future Donna. I got this feeling based on the scene where Wilf asks who she was at Donna's wedding, the Doctor doesn't answer him and instead we get a shot of Donna in front of the church. Granted that doesn't mean much, but seeing as Donna is a Time Lord after a fashion and her ultimate fate is (annoyingly) unresolved, it makes sense to me. Of course this woman could be any one of a number of Time Ladies we've met before: Romana, Flavia (yeah, Flavia! I said it) or Time Lady by marriage Leela! Ttenchantr (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Katherine Tate was in this episode, it would have been very easy to age her and utilize her for "The Woman" if that was the intent. There is nothing about the woman's role that reminds me even vaguely of Donna... same goes for an older Rose/Billy Piper. Unlikely. Cearly the viewer was suuposed to "get" but "not get" this--- I also doubt this is Leela or Romana... RTD would have gotten Lalla Ward or Loiuse Jameson back if they were meant to be "original" Who characters. This is someone "new"- I have no doubt. 24.46.159.137 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we stop the general chit-chat about the episode, please? This is a space for discussing the Wikipedia article only. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the winning ticket = more unsourced OR cruft

[1] = even more unsourced WP:OR cruft added to the Continuity section. Unbelievable. Completely inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does this need its own section separate to the one two above? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That was added in the last five minutes. Sorry we're not so quick off the mark. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not needed. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Without the sarcasm: That was added in the last five minutes. It's been removed now. I make no apologies whatsoever for the fact that I wasn't quick enough off the mark to satisfy you. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of satisfying one editor. Rather, that the inclusion of the subsection at all, encourages violation of site policy. Especially when that section already contains uncited OR cruft. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a chill-pill the two of you. Cool down for minute. You're worse than an old married couple.  Cargoking  talk  20:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTOR for works of fiction. It is the reason plot summaries can appear within minutes of a work of fiction appearing on TV, Film, or a book before a secondary source that could be days/weeks later. OR is the last resort of the scoundrel editor to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.163.161 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that in either the audio commentary or Doctor Who Confidential, Julie Gardner says something like "And you just know that's a winning ticket, don't you?" I'll try to find the exact source and quotation and come back once I've got it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  See my note two sections above where I agree it wouldn't be OR. I mean, the Doctor's a bloody time traveller! Sceptre ^(talk) 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rassilon

According to the last Doctor Who Confidential of Season 4 (Allons-Y) it is Rassilon. The Lord President/Narrator is referred to as Rassilon by Russell T. Davies in multiple instances. --Xero (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See #Rassilon above. I have already made the change to the infobox with this source. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course The Lord President is Rassilon. This is a work of fiction it does not require a secondary source and if some editors think it does then confidential is the secondary source as that programme is not a work of fiction.

Is it the original "Rassilon" back from the dead, or just another Time Lord with the same name? Stormcloud (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We do not know. We can therefore only state that he has the same name. Thetictocmonkey 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New edition of The Writer's Tale -- a required source?

Any editors wishing to further the info on this episode's casting/characters may wish to get their hands on The Writer's Tale - The Final Chapter. Judging by this media blog, it may have something more definite on the characters played by Claire Bloom and Timothy Dalton. --88.110.89.97 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that they were deliberately left open/mysterious, I very much doubt that the book will make any revelations... thanks for advising me of it, though, I've got some book-tokens to use up ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If the media blog is accurate, then (once the book is published and its contents can be verified) it would be appropriate to say that Davies identified the characters as so-and-so in emails published in The Writer's Tale. Even though the characters' identity may be ambiguous in the episode as aired, the opinion of the episode's writer is highly relevant information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes from the script

BBC Books have uploaded Davies' special scripts to the official Writer's Tale website (apart from Planet of the Dead, as of writing). Obviously, having exams, I can't pour over the book like I did when I first got it, but I want to make a few clarifications, or not, regarding the script:

• The Woman's identity is deliberately kept vague, and the Doctor staring at Donna isn't indicative of anything.
• Rassilon is referred solely as the Narrator in the script for part 1, and the Lord President for part 2.
• The implication that the lottery ticket is a winner is heavily implied, but not outright said (classic Davies...) in the script too.
• The bar is on a generic planet, with no Star Wars pointers in the script.

Yay. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They're now all available for download here (including Planet of the Dead)! ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes from the book

I just got the book through the post today (bloody Waterstone's, eh? Took 'em a week and a half to send it!). I can confirm that:

• Claire Bloom's character is the Doctor's mother. Russell only told Julie, Tracie, David, and Euros, and was more than content to let the fans think it's Romana.

• Timothy Dalton's character is Rassilon. As in, the character who appeared in The Five Doctors Rassilon.

I've rushed through to that part as I need to go out very soon (i.e. two minutes), but I'll continue this later on. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you? -- User:JimboWales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.52.0 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Diamond shooting star

When the Lord President throws the diamond, the shooting star is shown to be simultaneously appearing. Is these two events happening at the same time? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not happen simultaneously, it was sent into the future to create the link, what good is a TIMElord if he can't do that --60.229.177.176 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Weeping Angels

Here in our community, we of course discussed the "shamed" Time Lords and decided on 1st viewing that the one was the Doctor's mother. However, it was also discussed that the Weeping Angles could be these very Time Lords, somehow banished back to the beginning of the universe. Everyone thought their final poses of shame and distress clearly indicated this...and the Doctor had said several times that no one knew of the origin of the Angels. Food for thought...I have no citations and I'm not going hunting for any, and I'm not editing a thing either. Just food for thought...see the very end again and then decide for yourselves.75.21.98.232 (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Score

Shouldn't we have something about the Murray Gold score, especially the Vale Decem piece during the regeneration ? Hektor (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cast in the infobox

This has nothing to do with the fan debate about whether Dalton's character is Rassilon. The fact of the matter is that, through long standing consensus and per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style, the cast list in the infobox is listed "in a style similar to the credits". Dalton's character is listed as "The Narrator" in the first episode and as the "Lord President" in the second. Whether Medeis is editing in good faith or is edit warring the fact remains that until the current consensus is overturned the name Rassilon should not be added to the infobox. FYI when the series was first entered on IMDb Rassilon's name was not there, it has been added by a fan in the intervening time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Dalton is Rassilon is, for our purposes, at best assumption and at worst another assumption. Our reliable source for this is the producers of the programme, and unless and until they make the equation, it is not up to us to do so on their behalf. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help that there's a number of reviews of the episode from good and semi-reliable sources that make that confusion. But when you trace where they got "Rassalon" from, it's clearly one bad bit of speculation from somewhere. It needs to be kept as the credits list (Narrator/LP) --MASEM (t) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not privy to this fan debate. What matters is the sources. That the BBC credits him as Lord President is not proof that he is not Rassilon. Where is the policy saying IMDB is not a reliable source? If the matter is subject of controversy then it is absolutely not our place to take sides but to note the controversy.μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is the same as an open wiki that anyone can edit. Therefore, it fails reliability as a self-published source. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter. I am sure no one here will revert to the bad faith strategem of editing IMDB to suit his fandom POV. Russell T Davies himself refers to him as Rassilon in the Confidential episode. So I have added the matter to the text and referenced who says what. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent entry shows that you aren't yet understanding that this is not a fan forum it is an encyclopedia. You Tube links are to be avoided as they have copyright problems. You are still trying to insert IMDb as a source when it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that it cannot be used as such. What part of it is an open wiki do you not understand? It wouldn't matter if anyone who has commented on this page edited there or not it still cannot be used a source. Nor can it be quoted as somehow an authority on anything. RTD's thoughts on the character are of note so a revised version of your edit might fit into the continuity section but not under the header "Timothy Dalton" as he has nothing to do with RTD's intentions. I would suggest that you start working with the other people who have commented on this page to figure something out. MarnetteD | Talk 12:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as far as RTD is concerned, Dalton's character is Rassilon. He's stated this on many occasions, including DWC and The Writer's Tale. Unlike Bloom's character, where he said "well, personally, I think she's the Doctor's mother, but let the fans go crazy". He's unambiguously Rassilon from Rusty's POV... and as he's the writer and executive producer of the episode, his opinion holds a lot of sway. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is a matter of controversy, the proper wikipedia policy ios not tro take a side, but to report both sides and to attribute statements where they belong. It is a verifiable fact that the BBC lists Dalton in the credits as Lord High President. It is also verifiable that Russell T Davies, who wrote the episode, calls him Rassilon on a notable documentary describing the episode.

As for citing IMDB, the citation is not for the statement that as a matter of uncontroversial fact, Dalton is Rassilon, but simply for the fact that IMDB is one of the websites that do refer to Dalton as Rassilon. The analogy would be can we cite Orson Scott Card as proof that homosexuality is wrong? No. But we can cite Card's own site as proof that he himself holds this belief. Absolutely. This is the essence of NPOV. IMDB is notable and the listing does exist.

Editors who feel that it their place to prevent any reference to this controversy because they feel that one of the POV's in the controversy is "wrong" need to step back and realize that stating there is a verifiable controversy is perfectly encyclopedic and it is not our place as editors to make sure that a verifiable POV is not mentioned. We do not judge what is right or wrong. We report things that are notable and verifiable. The IMDB listing and RTD's statements are notable and verifiable.

Also, I remind editors to assume good faith. It is not civil behavior to denigrate people's edits as "fandom", and a repetition of that behavior will be reported as incivility.

I am restoring the mention of the Dalton/Rassilon issue in the text. It is notable, verifiable, and stated in an NPOV manner. Feel free to edit the wording, but removing the reference entirely will be treated as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of OSCard's website to support his view on homosexually (something we can easily presume was authored by Card himself) is nowhere comparable to saying that IMDB can be used to support Dalton's role. We have no idea where the information on Dalton came from on IMDB, and because it is effectively anonymous source that has no editorial oversight, it could be completely false. (The correct comparison is that RTD in commentary has suggested the character is Dalton).

The point is for consistency is that the credits which are what show in the infobox strictly are what is reported from the primary source - the episode itself. I think it's perfectly fine in the body of the article to mention that RTD has stated that Dalton's character was Rassilon, and I believe, if one searches enough, controversy over that statement, but because the BBC did not list it, it therefore is not appropriate in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant edit to the text (which MarnetteD reverted) not the infobox, says that IMDB is one of the sites that lists Dalton as Rassilon, which is verifiable. The edit to which I am refering does not say that Dalton is Rassilon. I am restoring that part of the text, and hope I have made clear why it is an NPOV discussion of the issue in exact accord with Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I invite editors to help better word this section if they see problems with it. Outright deletion will be viewed as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, IMDB is not a verifiable source since anyone can edit that information and there's no oversight (it is just like WP in that regards, and even we warn readers that because of our open editing policy, we cannot be a verifiable source). The right verifiable source is RTD's commentary (which I see is included already). RTD is reliable and the most primary source for his own work, so we don't need any other source to confirm it. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I see what you're getting at. You're trying to add a new section to support this. However, we already have that information; check under continuity, or follow where inline ref 12 is pointing to. More importantly, Ref 12 is the Confidential where RTD states this, so there's zero need to use any other source or, without any other controversy on the issue, need to expand on this point further. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! My bad. I would give the matter its own subsection though. Comments?μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, its right now an interesting tidbit. If there was a larger amount of information about Dalton's casting (not necessary about Rassilon, just his involvement) it could be expanded there, but it really needs not much more than that, based on a casual search to see very little additional commentary about that revelation. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Masem for pointing out that the info has been in the article all along. I missed that entirely. To answer the new question no it does not need its own subsection. As you point out there is not enough WP:RS info to expand beyond what we already have. MarnetteD | Talk 00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant its own subsection under the continuity head. Given that both MarnetteD and I missed it, it would seem reasonable enough to give it its own place at the end.μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the entire section Continuity is rather long and unwieldy, and I would suggest breaking it up into two sections, one for the Master, Rassilon, and the other Time Lords, and one for other characters and subjects.μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not miss it because it was hard to find - I missed it because I did not look for it. It was easy to find once I ran through the section. Thus, no the continuity section does not need subdividing. There are many of these continuity sections that are as long and longer that this one and they do not need splitting up either. Once again you seem to miss the point that there is a Manual of Style that we are adhering to. You might want to AGF that this MoS was put together by ongoing consensus over a number of years. It works well for articles relating to Dr Who articles and I can see no need to reinvent the wheel at this time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what policy in the MOS or elsewhere holds that a large Continuity section can't acquire logical subheads. Indeed, since readers' ease in finding material is one priority editors are supposed to keep in mind I see no possible harm. Does the current order have some virtue I am failing to see? I don't expect you to do this for me however, so I will simply be bold if I have the time to invest in arranging the section according to some logic other than the chance order in which people have historically added edits to that section.μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"and visits several of his past companions"

It's not stated in the episode itself, but in the two part "The Death of the Doctor" Sarah Jane Adventures episode, The Eleventh Doctor (Matt Smith) tells Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen) and Jo Grant/Jones (Katy Manning) that he looked over "every single one," i.e. every companion he ever had - and it would have been at this point he did so.

Anyone feel like editing? :) 85.210.78.84 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignore me, I didn't see it until it was heavily buried at the bottom of the very large continuity block... 85.210.78.84 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

'Ginger' controversy

Given this BBC Complaint I was wondering if this could be added to the page for The End of Time section.

This article on the BBC Website answers complaints people had about the Ginger comment at the end of the second episode by Matt Smith.

If not, then where?

--Snowboy83 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already done it. Check the bottom of the continuity section. U-Mos (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In the main body of the text, user MarnetteD is insisting that the line reading shows the Doctor is "disappointed" that he is not ginger. This is not the case. The line is read as him being relieved. (Check video clip and see.) This is exactly how the tenth incarnation reacted when his regeneration happened. "Please tell me I'm not ginger!" with shock/fear. This is played for humourous effect.

This is the reason why the BBC was accused of having an anti-ginger bias, and why they had to defend the line.

Actually you need to go back and watch the episodes. The tenth doctor stated that he always wanted to be ginger and the 11th is continuing this thought. MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even the link to the BBC page that Snowboy provided above, if you would read it, states that the Doctor is "disappointed he's still not ginger". This is quite clear in both stories and it is the misreading of it by people like you that has lead to the ridiculous complaints. MarnetteD | Talk 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that (MarnetteD) is right, yeah. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He is. Doctor: "Am I ginger or not?" Rose: "No, you're just sorta brown" Doctor: "Aw, I wanted to be ginger... I've never been ginger!" — Edokter • Talk • 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This page no longer exists. Someone more familiar with Wiki procedures should fix the citation. 63.229.1.130 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Video clip of part of the filming for this episode

Just making sure people were aware of this video clip. I stumbled across it while looking through the December 2010 Media of the Day archives over on Commons. Doesn't show much, but it's not often we get video we can use in these articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"this is a WP:EGG violation"

I'm puzzled. What article would you expect under the phrase "she first meets him", except for a description of their first meeting? -91.10.60.252 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That applies if you are writing the article from an "in universe" perspective. Wikipedia plot sections are to be written from an "out of universe" frame of reference. Having said that if you had read the whole section you would have seen that there is already a link to the Rose article with another EGG violation in the very next sentence. I suggest we compromise by leaving in the one that is already there. MarnetteD | Talk 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to "compromise" quite yet, I was just puzzled. I don't see the difference between "in universe" and "out of universe" here however; should plot sections only link to plot sections?

About the second link: The pipe text is about the whole season, so that's where it should link. I would leave out the link I added simply because the text is blue enough already. --91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It means that you have to be aware of the ongoing storyline to understaand what is being referred to which only some of the readers will. Those who haven't watched the show will click on the link and be taken to articles where the read have to sift through copious info and not necessarily find any connection to the phrases that you have linked to. They are highly improper as they stand but they are obviously important to you. Don't be surprised if someone else comes along and removes them especially in light of the last bulletted point here WP:INUNIVERSE MarnetteD | Talk 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think they are important to me? I think they are useful, because they would be useful to me, that's the extent of my thoughts about this. Do what you think is best, I'm done. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they aren't useful. What does the article Doctor Who (series 1) have to do with Rose "having a great year". Absolutely nothing - unless of course you are a fan of the show and think that coming close to death all the time is having a great year :-) Can't get much more in universe than that. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that the ever resourceful DonQuixote has tried another compromise. While, I like it better than the previous version it brings up the question - Why have a link only to the first season? Presumably her good year extended into season 2 - well at least until the Dr fades from view on the shores of Bad Wolf Bay :-) In some ways her affection for the Dr went up after the regeneration and the 2nd season might be more important that the first to Rose's good year. Well you can see this is the slippery slope where everything gets subjective and my interpretation of the storyline may differ from everyone elses. Better to avoid the whole thing IMO but I wont insist on any alterations. MarnetteD | Talk 23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If anything, this should probably go into continuity rather than plot. DonQuixote (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. If no one else responds in a day or so why don't you do the honors. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast and reception

We've added viewer numbers and critic comments, but is there somewhere where can get viewer opinion from? (I remember reading that at one stage the BBC had a viewer application rating). I ask because I don't know any Dr Who fans who liked this story (think plot hole, ambiguous Rassilon character, drawn out regeneration...). Comments from the critics appear to dismiss these problems with the story. Would fans agree? I doubt it Stormcloud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC). I do not know where you would find one definitive measure of viewer opinion but for the record I LOVED this episode - one of my favourites and tops for RTD.MonikaWikiWholock (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)2013October25