Talk:The Next Doctor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image caption

The caption for the image at the top of the page is a bit too lengthy and spoiler-ish, in my opinion. 76.95.221.240 (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't care about spoilers, and as it's a non-free image, it needs to have an explainatory caption. — Edokter • Talk • 04:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILERS. _TalkIslander 11:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, not again. There's no rush for an image. Write the article first, then find an image. That way, the infobox caption won't have such terrible but ultimately not NFCC-compliant writing. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest an image of a Cybershade (for which we have a discussion of the design), or the Cyberking, both being difficult to describe fully in words? Edgepedia (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cybershade or Cyberking would be better, as long as you can find the relevant production material. I'd be inclined to go towards the Cybershades because we can talk about the design, yes. If we can get discussion about steampunk-ness of the episode, (might get some from Confidential, though I think it'll mostly come from the reception), we could get a picture of the TARDIS rising up against the Cyberking. Where the project has three problems are: relying just on the plot for an image; relying just on the "cannot be adequately described with words"; and trying too hard to make it NFCC compliant, when sometimes it just can't be. Like I said on WT:WHO:

I was thinking about the images used in the episode articles. To be honest, they've got really crap rationales. I think we shouldn't rely just on the plot for a fair use image - we should use something where we can analyse the screenshot using as much information as we can. Take, for example, Turn Left. It's a really crap rationale and caption compared to The Stolen Earth. Uploaders are really going the wrong way with rationales... and it looks stunted. I've thought of an image that would be immensely better: Rocco Colsanto being shipped off to a concentration camp. (This shot) This is for four reasons:

1. It accurately represents the dystopia in the plot as a result of the Doctor's lack of presence. (Plot)
2. It accurately represents the "life during wartime" plot that Davies wrote. (Production)
3. It was well received by critics (Reception)
4. It can provide analysis in comparing the plot's depiction of dystopia with World War II (Production and Reception)

You see how easily I did that? I think Future Perfect at Sunrise has a point, to be honest: write the content, and the image should follow. Not the other way around. Doing it that way stunts the image, and ultimately, the article.

Writing rationales and captions should be like writing poetry: it just flows and feels right. When I write my rationales, I just don't throw in "to illustrate the plot", I give specific reasons—often specific just to that shot—to why I think the image should be used. When you try too hard, it brings up bad practices. The NFCC doesn't ask for an image "that cannot be adequately described with words", it asks for an image for which no free alternative medium could serve the same encyclopedic purpose, and that the reader's understanding of the article would be signficantly impacted if the image was removed. That's why the image on The Stolen Earth passes NFCC, whereas the image on The Unicorn and the Wasp may not. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. To pick up on just one of your points: I really don't see how the image for The Stolen Earth passes NFCC at all - "A distraught Rose cradles a dying Doctor". There, that simple image is described easily. The picture for The Unicorn and the Wasp, however, is harder to describe in words (or, as you put it, a free alternative medium). Yes, it's a large wasp, but how exactly is that done? Is it just literally an over-sized wasp, or are certain features changed? How is it attacking the Doctor et al? Same goes with this picture - Miss Hartigan destroyed the Cybermen, but how? Ultimately, am I right and you wrong? Not at all, just as you're not right with me being wrong. This is the large flaw with NFCC - it's hugely open to interpretation, and in this case, our interpretations don't match at all. _TalkIslander 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, "the infobox caption won't have such terrible but ultimately not NFCC-compliant writing." - I do take slight offence at that - in what way is it terrible? How would you like it if I slandered your work to the same extent? _TalkIslander 13:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd take FPaS's support of the image as affirmation that the Stolen Earth image is NFCC-compliant. And while we may have loose interpretations about the NFCC, when the image goes up to GAC/FAC, we need to explain to people like FPaS, who are considerably stricter, why it definitively passes the NFCC, and not just our interpretation of it. The problem with an image like this, or the Unicorn image, is that we're trying to find some analysis of the plot in just that shot, and most of the time failing. An infobox screenshot is supposed to touch on all the major points of the episode: its plot, its production, and its reception. There is no brightline which says "special effects are always compliant, humans only are non-compliant" either. And with regards to the writing: maybe terrible was a bit rash, but I definitely wouldn't support it if it came to GAC or FAC. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Full moon

A full moon is clearly visible in the night sky of the early hours of 25 December 1851. This is incorrect. In 1851 the full moon occured on 8 December. ðarkuncoll 22:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your point being...?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Goofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 December 2008

Doesn't strike me as the least bit notable - how often to producers go to the trouble of ensuring that the phase of the moon is correct for the dates used? Rarely, I'd have thought. _TalkIslander 01:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really a 'goof', just a nitpick.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention a huge robot in London. Just remember that this isn't a historical drama. DonQuixote (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there was a huge robot in London around that time, but it actually terrorised the nation on the 3rd January, not Christmas Day ;). However, your point on it not being a historical drama is bang-on. _TalkIslander 11:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if there is a trivia section, this information could go in there ;) 86.161.254.105 (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) WP:TRIVIA DBD 12:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really not notable. WP policy is to delete trivia or incorporate it into the article. "The CyberKing rises up from the Thames and it should be noted that the Moon is not in the correct phase that it was on 25 December 1851". No, I can't see it. It just sounds naff. Don't worry about it. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Jackson's suit

I'm not sure, but wasn't this briefly shown in the Christmas Invasion? Back when the Doctor tried to decide what to wear next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.85.225 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Polite request

I have been beefing out the plot description. Although I was initially merry with Xmas sherries and unfamiliar with Wiki, I have now toned down my personal flares and moved to adopt a neutral tone. I note that what I replaced was highly anecdotal and unclear, presumably due to having been written immediately after one viewing of the episode. A quick perusal of Wiki entries for other Doctor Who episodes shows entries little different in length or detail from my input. If this has been decreed to be unsuitable, I'd appreciate to see an evolution of the article and it not simply reverting.

I understand this service to be for the enjoyment of all, and to share our knowledge and observations. Therefore, this is a polite request to whomever is continuing to remove my input: please give more of a reason than you disagree with one individual Wiki user's writing style.

Also, apologies if I haven't signing this entry properly.

(Alexandermacpherson (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

The problem with a summary is that if it is too long so as to resemble more a blow-by-blow recital of the plot, we then have a problem with breaching copyright, as it is then a derivative work rather than a summary. If I have time, and subject to input from other editors, I'll take a look at it. --Rodhullandemu 20:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute those reasons given. However, nor do I think my entry was radically longer - a longer sentence here, a longer sentence there, the vicissitudes of different writing styles. Furthermore, there were possibly repeated earlier sections which I hadn't fully excised. Lastly, I still feel the previous input referred to the same points of the plot as I did; and other Wiki entries seem to give similar level of detail. I'll try one final, complete entry later! (Alexandermacpherson (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Might I suggest that you post your next version on this talk page, right here? That way, it's easier for others to comment on it, and it saves it being reverted near-on instantly by someone unaware of your post here. If consensus shows that it's good, it can be added to the article. On a side note, welcome to Wikipedia :). _TalkIslander 21:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

King Crimson homage / joke?

This web site [1] suggests the entire episode was a visual gag based on King Crimson's debut LP "In the Court of the Crimson King". A woman in a crimson dress as the leader of "The Court of the Cyber King"??? Coincidence seems unlikely88.97.41.24 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have also pointed out that the vocals on "ITCOTCK" were done by Greg Lake. Another coincidence? 88.97.41.24 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source we can consider including it. "Because some blogger thinks so" is none I am afraid. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that posting by Pete Baran on Freaky Trigger tells us is "never blog on egg nog and mulled wine". --TS 16:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, but you have to admit it does seem a good theory. 88.97.41.24 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuity, past companions

Ok, my PC hiccuped and posted the last revert before I finished the edit summary.

In Continuity we had

The Doctor also refers obliquely to more recent past companions noting to Lake that they either leave him (such as Rose), meet someone else or forget about him (such as Donna).

There seems to be a slow edit war on this sentence. My point on the version above is that it's WP:OR, we have no idea who the doctor was refering to. He's meant to be 950 years old and we only know about the last 50 years.

I think the sentence ought to stay as it is; we do not know who the doctor was referring to. Edgepedia (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he has had many many companions in the last 50 years, so speculating to whom he is referring falls under original research (I think that is the correct term) imo magnius (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Per billing

Someone added Rosita as a companion. I removed it. Next time, read that it SAYS it is listed by billing instead of citing some random interview. Especially given she's the companion of a companion. --69.11.210.54 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to the companion madness at the project page. Have a look. U-Mos (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rosita

Where should we put Rosita: as a companion, or as a guest star? I'd be inclined to list her as a guest star, because Rosita is like series 1 Mickey: a companion of a companion, rather than a companion herself. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion with Mickey before, I think we have kept him as a companion. I think Rosita had a larger role than guest star, she did help save the doctor and helped the children escape from the miss Hartegen's workhouse.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason why I said series 1 Mickey; Mickey is a companion in series 2, and arguably in series 4. Jenny had a comparable role, but I don't think we class her as "companion". Sceptre ^(talk) 19:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Support guest star; her role as a companion in an exegetic sense is extremely moot. --Rodhullandemu 19:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, Rodhull. The arguments for her becoming a companion of Ten are extremely weak. tphi (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

But is whether she's ten's companion or the episode's companion make much of a difference? The term companion is given in a lot of articles and on the BBC website, although like Jackson she's clearly not a 'proper companion' she was at least this episode's.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can add is that neither Jackson or Rosita has been added as companions (or even allies) on the official website. That might just mean that they haven't updated that part of the site yet. An official statement or a statement from a secondary reliable source might be helpful in resolving this (a la Astrid). DonQuixote (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say add her as a companion as she went with the Doctor to help him when David Morriseys Character stayed behind. Her character seemed more of a companion than David Morriseys through atleast the first 30 minutes. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Narratively, Rosita is shown to be Jackson "The Next Doctor" Lake's companion. The Tenth Doctor then joins her as a companion to Jackson "The Next Doctor" Lake. When the truth regarding Lake's identity is revealed, Lake sends Rosita to be the Tenth Doctor's companion rather than himself. Thus, although her tenure as a companion to the Tenth Doctor is brief, she is the Tenth Doctor's companion nonetheless. This is supported by the corresponding Fact File on the official BBC Doctor Who website and by an interview with Velile Tshabala - in response to the statement/question "We know she becomes assistant to both Doctors over the course of the episode, but how?", Tshabala responds "Yeah, she does..." and the interviewer uses the term "companion" elsewhere. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting the episode proper aside for the moment, the sources above state that she's Morrissey's companion. As for the episode itself...actually, I'm not going to touch it because there's nothing solid enough for me to back one way or another (that is, is she like Astrid or is she like Jenny?). DonQuixote (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed "assistant" in the interview. Sorry. DonQuixote (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right - I double checked the BBC source and it only refers to her as the Next Doctor's companion. However, the interview with the actress concerned still stands. As for the episode - there's the scene where Jackson Lake and Rosita are left alone and Lake sends Rosita to assist the Doctor, effectively transferring his companion to the real Doctor. Yes, she only assists the Doctor for, what is it, the last 25 minutes or something, but that still counts as one-off companionship ala Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway, Donna Noble in "The Runaway Bride" and last Christmas's Astrid Peth. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just adding my 3p worth ... Jackson goes into the TARDIS and runs out, looking like he's turned down travelling with the Doctor ... the main dynamic is between the two David's (look at the images on the BBC website) ... however, there's nothing about any new companion on the BBC website. How about no companion? Edgepedia (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid position too. Like I said, unless there's an official statement, personally, I'm just going to leave things to you guys. DonQuixote (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think both Jackson Lake and Rosita are to be considered companions in this episode, not just one of them. Regards SoWhy 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The scene in which Jackson Lake says to Rosita something like "Go - he needs someone" (he being the Tenth Doctor) is effectively Lake ruling himself out of being a companion and transferring his companion to the rightful Doctor now his own true identity has been established. Prior to this Rosita was Jackson Lake's companion with the Tenth Doctor becoming his companion too (he says something like "I'm your companion") whilst he assumes Lake is a future incarnation. Lake had companions, Rosita was a companion, first to Lake then to the Doctor. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

But then Lake returns to help and rescue the Doctor and continues at his side. Imho that makes him a companion as well. SoWhy 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people help the Doctor without being companions though. I'd be quite happy to accept Jackson Lake as a one-off companion as well if this was the production team's intention, but as of yet we do not have a source to confirm this - unlike with Velile Tshabalala confirming Rosita's status in an interview. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening titles say "DAVID TENNANT; DAVID MORRISSEY", Morrissey taking the spot occupied by Piper, Tate, Agyeman, Minogue and Davison, which suggests he's either a companion or a secondary Doctor. Since we know he's not, strictly, the latter, I'd say that's fair evidence for Lake being considered a companion. Also, remember whatever we put in this ibx impacts Companion (Doctor Who) DBD 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Usually only the Doctor and companions are included in the pre-title credits. SoWhy 23:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the story itself we should look to though and its the Tenth Doctor whom is companion to the "Next Doctor". Devla Kirwin aside, Morrissey is the next big name after Tennant in the cast for this special, so it's not surprising his name made the opening title sequence - it would have looked a bit bare with just Tennant. It may also owe to us still being led in to thinking this man may be some form the real Doctor at this stage in the episode, thus part of Russell T Davies's deception along with the title "The Next Doctor". Seeing Morrissey's name in the credits aids Davies in convincing the audience that this man may be the real Doctor. As I said above, until a source can be found, (like the two interviews with the actress concerned currently cited for Rosita), we cannot list Jackson Lake as a companion. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are interpreting too much into the intentions. After all, there was not a single episode where the title credits listed anyone else except the Doctor and Companion(s). So I think it is fairly safe to assume that their intentions have not changed for this special. SoWhy 23:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't know whether Morrissey's credit is akin to Kylie Minogue's in "Voyage of the Damned" - i.e. companion - or Peter Davison's in "Time Crash" - i.e. alternative Doctor. The title sequence appears at the stage in the episode at which the audience are still being led to think Morrissey may be the Next Doctor. Just for clarity's sake, I can see an argument for Morrissey being counted as a one-off companion as well as Rosita. Personally, I view him as a guest helper but not a companion, but I appreciate that the production staff may regard him as a companion because he helps and if this is the case I would of course subscribe to this view, but I think we should wait until there is confirmation either way. There's no rush after all to determine his status. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I say we follow the billing. Rosita was Jackson's companion, not the Doctor's. This is also confirmed in Confidential. Being the 'next' Doctor is also as close as you're going to get as a companion. — Edokter • Talk • 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I watched Confidential - was it confirmed that she was not the Tenth Doctor's companion? Or was it confirmed that she is Jackson's? They're not mutually exclusive. I'll have to rewatch it - I was watching the 4.00 a.m. repeat so was tired at the time and may have missed something. As I have noted, we cannot confirm the meaning behind the billing - yes it follows the usual pattern, but "Time Crash" offers precedent for change to this. At that stage in the episode, Jackson was more akin to an alternative Doctor to the Tenth Doctor as Peter Davison's Fifth Doctor was to the Tenth Doctor in "Time Crash". Two interviews with Tshabalala suggest she is under the impression Rosita was a companion to "both" Doctors. The only thing I've read that might mean that Morrissey thinks this re. Jackson is his statement "it was Kylie last year and me this year!" found here - however, the question he is answering is only related to appearing in Doctor Who not to being a companion, so he may be saying Kylie guested last year and this year it is me guesting, not necessarily that he is fulfilling the companion role. Tshabalala's interviews reference the term "companion". Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but to whom? If she is a companion (to Tennant), why wasn't she billed as such? — Edokter • Talk • 01:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Because she's not very famous - (consider this was on Christmas Day, I know relative unknowns have occupied this spot before but Morrissey is more of a draw for casual viewers) - and her tenure as a companion to the Tenth Doctor was very brief - the briefest ever of any companion, although that doesn't mean it didn't exist, especially given that specials have featured one-offs before. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, in the Digital Spy interview - Q: "We know she becomes assistant to both Doctors over the course of the episode, but how?" A: "Yeah, she does..." For a long time "assistant" and "companion" (really a fan constructed term) have been interchangeable, especially in the wider media. I'm sure past cast and crew have also used the term "assistant". I've got a Doctor Who puzzle book up in the loft somewhere with a companions wordsearch. All the companions are listed (even Sara Kingdom), but Liz Shaw and Jo Grant are under a seperate section "Assistants" by virtue of them having been appointed to the Doctor by UNIT. Now, fandom regard Liz and Jo as companions with no delineation. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One last thing - the lead for the Telegraph interview - "Robert Collins meets Velile Tshabalala, the new assistant to not one but two Doctors in the Doctor Who Christmas special." Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Assistent" is not "Companion". The script excerpt (for which I mistook the date) actually proves that Morrisey is the actual companion. So I moved that ref to the infobox. Companions MUST be billed as such, or they are not a companion. BTW. Billy Piper was't that famous either, bot got main billing nontheless. — Edokter • Talk • 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And another point; while debating Rosita as a companion is one thing, noone contests Morrisey asthe Doctor's companion, so please stop removing him form the article and the template. — Edokter • Talk • 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

Wikipedia does not run on consensus, rather facts - and I am contesting his status as the Doctor's companion, so to say no one is, is incorrect. All I'm asking for is a source. As stated, I'm perfectly willing to accept Jackson Lake is a companion. I just want proof. Sorry, where's the script excerpt you refer to above? I thought you'd mistaken the book extract date. I haven't seen the script extract. Please could you direct me to the link? It seems I've overlooked it. And who determined companions must be billed as such in order to be one? No actors were credited in the opening sequences in the classic series, save for the Doctor's face and in Doctor Who in 1996. That does not mean Susan, Harry and Kamelion don't count. Yes, "new Who" has adopted this style, but I say again, "Time Crash" has set precedent that this can be changed and on this occassion it makes sense to try and trick the audience into thinking Morrissey is literally the Next Doctor - such billing is a tool in achieving this aim. Further, unlike say Star Trek series where their ranks are shown along with character names, Billie Piper, Freema Agyeman, Catherine Tate et al. have not been credited "Billie Piper as Rose, companion" etc., merely "Billie Piper". Taking the opening sequences in "new Who" on their own, we can only say the actors are important to the series with logic dictating the first name shown is the titular Doctor. A casual viewer may not be aware that the next name is usually the person playing the "companion" - further they may have no notion of this term in the context of Doctor Who, although logic would probably say they're a series regular or important guest star. Nor is opening sequence billing proportionate to relative importance of a character to the narrative. Think "Love & Monsters", "Blink" and "Midnight" - the companions do very little in these stories. Oh and Bruno Langley never got an opening title credit despite playing companion Adam Mitchell. Re. Billie Piper's fame - Piper had been a tabloid favourite for years prior to "Rose" through her drinking years with then husband Chris Evans and prior to that had been the youngest female solo artist in UK chart history to debut at Number One, with her second single also entering at Number One, (so says Top of the Pops 2) and she had a string of other hits. She may not have been a household name to the new child audience they sought, but Piper was more famous prior to Who than Tshabalala was - I only know that she appeared in the dreadful CBBC show Kerching!. And surely Tshabalala's words count for something? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To summarise, I've offered evidence that Rosita is a companion to both Doctors. This has been edited out of the article with insufficient explanation as to why it is invalid. Thus far, only billing has been put forward as evidence of Jackson being a companion to the Tenth Doctor. I have proposed that on this exceptional occassion billing cannot be accepted as evidence because we cannot ascertain what Russell T Davies's intention was - to bill him as a companion or to bill him as an alternative Doctor. Or both. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I've listed them both as companions to the Tenth Doctor. I have provided sources for Rosita and Jackson is a logical extension from the billing as pointed out by others above. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but the interview itself isn't enough to justify her being a "companion". The Telegraph article, though, is in the same vein as DWM announcing that Mickey was a companion (unless the Telegraph isn't deemed a reliable source). (On a side note, the only difference between "companion" and "assistant" is that fans prefer, and have helped coin, "companion" over "assistant".) DonQuixote (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely a companion of The Doctor can only be "A Companion" if he/she has actually traveled with him (e.g in the Tardis)? Neither Lake nor Rosita did that. 88.97.41.24 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, see Astrid Peth for example. Regards SoWhy 18:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a fan definition. The production definition is "whomever we choose". DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The excerpt from entertainment.timesonline.co.uk: ...when this other man [to be played by David Morrissey] swings in, dashing, brilliant, amazing, clever, witty, saves the day. The Doctor says, “Who are you?” The man says, “I'm the Doctor!” Good scene. The Doctor becomes his companion. I like that. Sweet. I will pose that consensus is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, so please don't dismiss it like that. The other most important pillar is Verifiability. It is no use citing all other episodes; they have no bearing here. We need to establish companionship for this episode alone, and for the new series, one tell-tale sign is billing. Rosita is a different story. We need an independent (third) source establishing her companionship. Her interview is debatable. But I'm willing to let it stand for now. But we need to be wary to avoid original research here. — Edokter • Talk • 19:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Having just rewatched the episode, I think the key dialogue with regard to establishing Rosita and Jackson as companions to the Tenth Doctor comes at around the 31 minute mark. Up until this point Rosita and the Tenth Doctor have been companions to the "[Next] Doctor". At the 31 minute mark, having just learned his true identity and grieving for his late wife and with the Doctor in pursuit of Cybermen, Jackson says to Rosita, "The Doctor needs help, I learned that much about him. There should be someone at his side. Now go! Go!" Rosita then runs to the Doctor and becomes his companion - as instructed by the man she thought previously to be the Doctor and to whom she was a companion. In effect, Jackson transfers his companion to the rightful Doctor. Albeit only until the end of the story, Rosita is a companion to the Tenth Doctor, her status as such verified by interviews with the actress. Then, around the 35 to 36 minute mark, having composed himself, Jackson comes to the Doctor and Rosita's rescue and declares himself "At your service, Doctor." Jackson Lake - the man who had the Tenth Doctor as his own companion - now becomes a companion to the Tenth Doctor as well as Rosita, his status as such verified by David Morrissey's billing in the opening sequence. At the end of the story, Rosita becomes Jackson's "good friend" and his son's "nurse-maid" and Jackson remains to take care of his son. Thus, it is Rosita that first becomes a companion to the Tenth Doctor when it looks like Jackson is overcome with grief and is not up to the role himself and then Jackson himself becomes a companion to the Tenth Doctor as well when he composes himself, determined to avenge his wife's death and stop the Cybermen and saves the Doctor and Rosita. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of research. Thanks for taking the time. Unless you can find a secondary source that says the same thing, it's also original research. Anyway, just as Edocktor said, we need another source to go along with the Telegraph article. DonQuixote (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

It's ridiculous to call Rosita a companion here; yet another example of technicalities leading to common sense being totally ignored. Rosita was seen in the companion role next to Morrisey's "Doctor". Everyone bar Tennant was a one-episode guest star. The ONLY REASON there is a companion listed at all is Morrisey being credited as a star in the opening titles. That's it. No half-analysed quotes from the episode, no telegraph writer deciding she qualifies, no vague references to Rosita as a "companion" that don't specify any particulars, just pure fact. Because companion, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is the equivalent of the episode's main stars who aren't the Doctor. U-Mos (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not assume 'common sense [is] being totally ignored'. I actually read Rosita was to be companion to the Tenth Doctor prior to the episode's transmission but instead of leaping to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect this, I waited to see if this actually proved to be the case in the episode itself. Indeed, in the first half hour I thought the source must have got this wrong, but sure enough as the episode changes gear half way through and we see Jackson break down after learning the truth, it is Rosita who steps up and fulfills the narrative 'companion' role, eventually joined by Jackson as a fellow companion when he reappears zapping the Cybermen flanking Miss Hartigan and thus saving the Tenth Doctor and Rosita. I finally got round to listening to the accompanying podcast and rewatching Doctor Who Confidential - (I caught the 4.00 a.m. repeat in the morning after Christmas Day and barely took a thing in). Russell T Davies has the following to say re. Rosita: on her name - it is a "Rose/Martha combination of a name, just so that she'd feel like a companion even before she's done anything" (podcast). Davies deliberately gave her the "feel" of a companion prior to "even...[doing] anything" as such. More generally Davies says, "Rosita is designed to be the archetypal companion 'cos when the Doctor meets the Next Doctor he needs to look like the Doctor...In miniature, she's an absolute proper companion and is brave and fights and saves the children..." (Confidential). Yes, Rosita is initially the Next Doctor's companion, but as the actress has confirmed in at least two interviews she ends up helping/assisting both Doctors A.K.A. the real Doctor and Jackson Lake. (I elected not to mention this earlier as it is in original research territory, but when Jackson sends Rosita after the Tenth Doctor, the first things she does are ask questions and run. Yes, loads of characters in Doctor Who do this, but its stereotypical of companions. Anyway, as I said OR territory, hence the brackets.) Tellingly however, it is the Tenth Doctor instructing Rosita what to do as she is "In miniature...an absolute proper companion...and saves the children". To the above points re. sources, I found the Telegraph article after having already cited the Digital Spy article. That's two sources and I've found some more since. And I repeat re. billing - see "The Long Game" (no companion credit for Adam Mitchell who was designated as a companion by key production staff) and "Time Crash" (two Doctor credits and no one to my knowledge has ever tried to claim the Fifth Doctor is the Tenth Doctor's companion for this story because that is how they appear to be billed), for examples of straying from the recently established (1996 onwards) trend in Doctor Who of including actors' names in the title sequence and my point re. there not being a labeling system, (e.g. Billie Piper as companion Rose Tyler). It is far from 'ridiculous' to identify characters as one-off companions given the precedent set by Sara Kingdom, Dr. Grace Holloway and most notably with regard to this episode Donna Noble in 2006 Christmas special "The Runaway Bride" and Astrid Peth in 2007 Christmas special "Voyage of the Damned". Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cripes! You need 11 citations to prove a point, and none of them actually states "Rosita is the Tenth Doctor's companion". I'm not reverting, but please cut down the numers of citations; this looks rediculous! If you need that much (vague) citations, it looses every bit of credibility. — Edokter • Talk • 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that looks terrible and from what I can see, most, if not all of those citations are irrelevant. we only need one good citation to say that she is a companion, and her status is still quite arguable as it is magnius (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not need 11 citations to prove a point. There are 11 citations that "prove" a point. I am merely making use of them in this article. Also, one has to read the articles in question in order to find relevent statements. I think its wishful thinking to expect the sources to use the sentence "Rosita is the Tenth Doctor's companion", as stated above, explicitly. I think Russell T Davies qualifies as the "one good citation" asked for. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 5

If it makes people feel any better, Stephen James Walker wrote in his book Monsters Within (while an unofficial guide, is still scholarly) that, and I quote, "the chances are that the specials will feature a succession of 'one off' companions akin to Astrid in 'Voyage of the Damned' - starting with Rosita, played by Velile Tshabalala, in the 2008 Christmas special "The Next Doctor", leaving Moffat to present his own new ongoing companion(s) in the 2010 episodes. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the other books he's written (or co-written), SJW is good enough for me. Given that, we can also reduce the number of cites to just one. DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that is clearly a reliable source in these matters. I do not understand why we have so much discussion about that status, WP:V is clear: Reliable source says she is, so we write that she is. If someone thinks the source is incorrect, they got to prove that. I hope we can end the discussion on that trivial matter finally with that source... SoWhy 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a technical question - does Stephen James Walker's speculation in a book published prior to the episode's transmission really trump writer Russell T Davies's comments in the podcast and on Doctor Who Confidential broadcast to accompany the episode, both of which were referenced in the citations replaced by this book? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"1851 - Boring year"

10th Doctor asks a boy what year and date is - gets reply, responds with a boring year. Makes last few days therfore more interesting: Christmas Eve, 1851 - Library of Congress burns down - anyone think it's worth a mention? Crescent (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, there is no suggestion that it is part of the plot magnius (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus it will qualify for Orginal research as well. Pro66 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides the library isn't located in the UK, so they wouldn't be too bothered! :) --Cameron* 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, the Doctor (one of them) may have a passing mention of this, but I'm sure this would have some mention somewhere. If you looked at the Journey's End trailer, it looks like some scenes are set in a graveyard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.125.135 (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What has a graveyard in London got to do with the Library of Congress burning down? I don't understand why you are linking the two magnius (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they buried the books?Evilgidgit (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was being sarcastic or flippant. After all, 1851 was the year of the Great Exhibition. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

US (2)

Is there any source saying when this'll air in the US? --69.91.95.139 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You best bet is keeping track of the following pages:

http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/123/index.jsp

http://www.scifi.com/doctorwho/

— Edokter • Talk • 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding, Edokter! I was worried this section would be ignored like the one above.

I'll definitely be keeping an eye on those websites. --69.91.95.139 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Credits

In Radio Times, Tennant & Morrissey were identically credited in the cast list as The Doctor. Can anyone confirm whether this was followed in the on-screen credits? Cast lists on various websites are inconsistent, & I haven't managed to find a prose statement on this point. Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This was not followed- Morrissey was credied as Jakeson Lake. Here is a screencap of the credits as proof. --OZOO 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Lake page - Why isn't there one?

Hello.

I was wondering if someone can explain why a page for Jackson Lake hasn't been created here at Wikipedia? Sure, he may only have been a one-off companion but so was Grace Holloway and Astrid Peth and more recently, Christina de Souza and they've had pages created for them. Why is Jackson being the exception?

Thanks for reading and I look forward to any and all responses. --Alan-WK (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a more pertinent question would be: why have pages been created for such minor characters? Mezigue (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to, but got bogged down with schoolwork. At the moment, though, The Next Doctor is low on my list of personal priorities; currently, my priorities are to get the other series four articles to GA/FA, then this article, then Children of Earth, then the Leonard Cohen song Hallelujah, then RTD's article... If someone wants to create it in the vein of Astrid Peth or Jenny (Doctor Who), though, I won't object. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Series 4/Transition specials/Both straw poll

I've been thinking about this episode a bit recently, and how we should categorise it. It was produced in the series four cycle, as opposed to the 2009 cycle, but it's also got the tone of the transition specials (Tennant's last TV specials). What are peoples' thoughts towards this special? Should it be counted as part of series 4, part of the transition specials, or both? Sceptre ^(talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say we go with the sources. If it's part of season 4's production cycle and all, then it should be counted as season 4 while the specials are their own entity. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not series 4 - that ended in July, and the DVD is already out without this. Production filming does not indicate it's season - In the early era of Doctor WHo they used to record stories at the end of a schedule to hold over for the net season. 86.149.200.10 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with this episode though; DWM 402's pullout Doctor Who Backstage has RTD saying that "The Next Doctor" is like the four remaining specials: the Doctor has no fixed companion but has one one-off companion for each episode. Also, most things that are billed as the "fourth series" don't include TND (e.g. DVD boxset, SJW) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For me at least, the DVDs are definitive — S1 is "Rose" through "The Parting of the Ways", 2 "The Christmas Invasion" (or the Children in Need prologue) through "Doomsday", 3 "The Runaway Bride" through "Last of the Time Lords" and 4 "Voyage of the Damned" through "Journey's End". We'll see whether the five specials are released in a box set, but even if they aren't, it's a convenient way of grouping them. Unfortunately, production codes and cycles don't necessarily mean lots — the specials are 4.? because it saves from the mess of naming them X.? or whatever. Anyway, there's a very definite "divide" between "Journey's End" and "The Next Doctor". Just my tuppence! DBD 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with DBD, but we can alway keep a look out to see what bbc.co.uk/doctor who list them as. There is no rush after all. :) --Cameron* 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it need to be categorised in/grouped with either Series 4 or the 2009 Specials? Can it not be simply Series 4, 2008 Christmas Special, 2009 Specials, Series 5...? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as TCI is categorised as series 2, TRB series 3, and VOTD series 4, non-categorisation would make this a freak case. More than it is now, I mean. I keep thinking about this and I'm constantly edging towards the 2009 specials... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should cause concern. It's an episode after Series 4 and before the 2009 specials - simple as. It does not need shoe-horning into a category merely for categorisation's sake. It's a mere anomaly to the usual pattern, at least until it is grouped somehow by an official BBC party. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is anyone opposed to removing it from the series 4 category? If not, I'll remove it in a couple of days time. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've (re?)acted on this consensus as per this discussion and my own thoughts on the matter. IMO it's madness to list this episode as part of series 4. U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Truncated" credits?

The section under DVD release talks of an altered "cinematic" end credits sequence, as opposed to the truncated form from the broadcast. I for one have no idea what this means. What was truncated about the original credits? What has been changed on the DVD? More info is needed there. (On a lesser note, shouldn't the picture also show the final cover version with the balloon?) U-Mos (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've remove "truncated", as it implies the credits are somehow incomplete, which they aren't. — Edokter (talk) — 16:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the official credits Official Doctor Who Website Sfxprefects (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

America?

Okay, I live in America and I don't know when this episode will air over here. So I was just wondering when it will come on. Will it be the same as in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.162.55 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Prabably not the same as the UK because thats just the way it usually works, the country that made it sees it first, but I'm guessing that it would be sometime in early-mid 2009, something like that. 75.165.122.88 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

alright, so since its confirmed to start in the UK in 2010, then its probably going to be 2011 in the US...71.231.203.217 (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC America usually plays Doctor Who episodes one week after they aired on BBC1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.229.243 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but normally the Christmas episode is delayed in the US until the regular series/season begins in the UK. With there being only the 4 movies this year, there's the fear here that they will delay showing any of the movies until they're all made & shown in the UK.

24.128.133.89 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just watched it and the Dr. floats away in a ballon. It did not end the way it says in the article. And such a shame they killed off the Miss Hartigan character. She was something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.201.68 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Past Doctors

As the episode featured a brief apperance of every past doctor should this be mentioned in the main article {Ucebaggie (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)}.

It is mentioned, however is it really necessary to reference from which story each of the previous Doctor's head shots are from? 123.50.138.2 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this sort of thing is referenced for many shows, especially Doctor Who.

70.88.213.74 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the clips of the past Doctors, could someone tell this American who has yet to see the episode whether or not the clips of the First and Second Doctors are colorized or not? 70.88.213.74 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact all the doctors appear in black and white (sepia more accurately) magnius (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Isnt it a mistake thatd 3rd and 9th doctora are visiblke in this short scene? they both never had met the cybermen, and for the same reason the 3rd doctor was omitted in a simiar scene of Earthshock" --Münzberg (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Next Doctor DVD cover.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)