Talk:Last of the Time Lords/Archive 1

{{fact}}

None of that has been confirmed - or at least referenced in the article. Although I'm sure the Time-Lord bit is true, the title could be read as contradicting it.--Rambutan (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Daleks

I think the Dalek stories are a bit too near the start of the series, if you ask me... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.146.0.208 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Hmm I agree, but RTD said somewhere that there'd be no Daleks in the series finale this year, though he did say that last year too, so I don't know... --Sekhmort 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

possibly but now there is only 1 dalek left it looks unlikely (awwwwwwwwww!!!)--Secfrance 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Daleks but I read in a magazine (Toxic I think) that the Cybermen were supposed to be coming back. I would appreciate if anyone could confirm this from another source. (Surgeon when 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Speculation : the toclafane will be revealed as something else. My guess is that they are the spirits of timelords (or possibly Gelth -note that the woman voicing them also did the Gelth) , but others are speculating they're an advance guards for the daleks. AJN/28 June 2007

Xmas special

If you look at the 31st-March news story on the OG News Page titled "Russell T Davies on BBC Radio", you'll see that it is confirmed.--Rambutan (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'Mountainside fight' confirmed by Tennant and Simm?

Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. To date, the only source mentioning a mountain, Tennant and Simm, is Caitlin Moran's article for the Times, in which Simm mentions filming a scene with Tennant "on top of this deserted mountain-top"; that's a world away from what's currently in this article. Either a further citation is needed, or the content ought to be removed/rephrased. Digby Tantrum 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This content needs deleting. I have read the article linked above and I think it is inadequate to support this speculative scene. Newspaper articles regardless of the publication have a tendancy to provoke rumour, and rumour cannot be represented as fact. --MrWez 07:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Doctor Who Christmas Special

I have noticed that an article has been created for the 2007 Doctor Who Christmas special. For now, I have redirected this article to List of Doctor Who serials as its content is mostly speculation. It is currently too early to create this article as we do not have enough information about the story to write it - no doubt this information will appear on the Outpost Gallifrey news page and in DWM within the coming months, at which time we can write the article properly. (I believe a similar situation occurred last year - the proposed deletion failed, so a redirect is probably the best option.) Silver Nemesis 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

also - apparently kylie minogue has agreed to appear in xmas aspecial - no idea where source though - think it's one of the tabloids in the uk?Crescent 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RTD confirms above rumour is nonsense: see April 27 entry on Outpost Gallifrey news page. Gwinva 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Motion(less) Picture

I think "Last of the Timelords" was the title for the early 1990s version of the planned Doctor Who movie that famously never materialised. If so, should there be any information about it, either here or elsewhere, and also do we need to disambiguate the article title? Timrollpickering 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in The Nth Doctor by Jean-Marc Lofficier as one of the possible movie ideas. If we were to write an article about it, we should just group them together under an article dealing with the movie-licensing history of Doctor Who, which include Doctor Who Meets Scratchman. DonQuixote 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Saxon picture caption

Sigh... why is the "He's fire... and ice..." quote attached to a picture of Saxon? Do we have any kind of confirmation that the quote is either (a) about Saxon or (b) spoken by him? Kelvingreen 19:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To have the picture of him tapping his fingers on the table would be nice (although I suspect it's from the sound of drums). (Black Dalek 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)).

It's not that well known, unfortunately, but Wikipedia is presently awash with unlicensed images that should be removed on policy grounds if not on legal grounds. The precise reasons to remove that image are:

1. the image has been selected for high quality (see the file history)
2. the image's use in the article is primarily decorative and it otherwise contributes minimally to the article.
3. in this instance we don't even know whether the scene appears in the episode, which has not yet been broadcast; the item seems to have been taken from a generic trailer that covers several episodes, and may well contain pre-broadcast imagery that appear in the broadcast form of the episodes.
4. There is as yet no identification in the image file Image:Mr. Saxon new trailer.jpg of the article Last of the Time Lords as an article for which the Fair use defense against copyright infringement applies.

For details see the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC).

Some of these items can be fixed easily (the image could be downgraded to a lower quality, we could wait until the episode was broadcast and use an image from the broadcast) and some of them would be more difficult to fix (the image's contribution to the article is overwhelmingly decorative). The image should be removed until that is remedied. --Tony Sidaway 08:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow point 4.--Rambutan (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to the image file and enter a justification, if you can produce one, for the use of that image in this article. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source the image is actually from this episode? Matthew 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a source that it's from this two-parter, and that's good enough for WP. If you look at the Daleks in Manhattan history, you'll find that it had an image long before we knew which part of the two the image would appear in. The image represents the story and the plot, not the actual episode. The article only really reflects the plot (and contains almost identical info to the Sound of Drums).--Rambutan (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "good enough for WP". If there was an inappropriate image in Daleks in Manhattan, that does not mean it's okay to put an inappropriate image in other articles. Please see the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC). --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a source that it's from this episode then it isn't good enough for me. Also, my qualm is not over the NFCC but rather remaining verifiable. Matthew 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I was assuming that if something stood on a Wikipedia article for several months, and wasn't removed by either you or Khaosworks or Josiah Rowe, then you all agreed that it was fine. You three do most of the prowling - though at least Josiah does it an a completely non-surly manner.--Rambutan (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source on the "He's fire and ice" caption? Do we know that it's about, or by, Saxon? If not, let's remove it please. Kelvingreen 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was said in John Simm's voice, placing it in this two-parter. I imagine that it's about the Doctor (as the voiceover at the end of the BBCi preview was), but it's in the same quandry that the picture's in.--Rambutan (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, I'd say you made a very bad assumption there. We're always trying to improve Wikipedia's quality (by "we", of course, I mean you, me, and everybody else) but we can't be everywhere and we're not (most of us at least) control freaks enough that we feel we have to fix everything at once. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, when I read your bit about "control freaks", I snorted and spilled my coffee!--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No it is just Users speculating using Wikipedia as a crystal ball (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). It's a voice-over that could of been spoken anyone (Rambutan, unless you see John Simms' lips move when the words are spoken you can't state that it is John Simm saying it) and could be refering to any character in the last half of the series. The image and the caption should remain removed either until someone can support their appearance on this page or the episode has been broadcast.--MrWez 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can be sure it's him saying it, because he's got a voice which can be recognised. For example, how do we know it's him in the cabinet room? Unless there's an official BBC press release confirming that that's him, it shouldn't be on WP.

Also, it's obviously referring to the Doctor: who else would have that said about them at the climactic point in the trailer?--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Simm has a distinctive voice, which sounds nothing like the quote from the trailer, in my opinion. And that's the key here; all we've got to go on at this point is opinion, and that's not good enough for Wikipedia. Kelvingreen 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. I don't know whether it's him or not, or even whether it's the cabinet room. It's just a picture of this guy with his face obscured by a gas mask. Let's wait. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already removed this point about Saxon in the Cabinet room from the Mr Saxon article, it may however have been reverted back. I haven't checked.--MrWez 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC) That's strange, I may have been mistaken but I have made the appropriate edit now.--MrWez 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This thing about Saxon and the gas mask is a bit disingenuine. The gas mask is clear... you can see his face through it. Beyond that... you can easliy make out that it's Saxon, not just from his hair. You can pretty much see his face. If you are watching on a feed... you simply need to pause it to make sure.--Dr who1975 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, Wikipedia is not here for people to define their own vision of how the series will play out. What you are claiming to be obvious may be to you but might not to be anybody else.
You can't make a justified arguement with the trailer footage, as the trailer is not entirely cut in sequencial order. The shots at the end (of the doors closing on the sun) may appear in the next episode.
The voice over may be refering to a villain in the "Human Nature" two parter, in fact when I first heard it I thought it was the character who says "We are the family of blood.".
Now I can't say I know John Simm well enough to pick his voice out. So unless I see him saying the words I cast doubt over your arguement. The shot of Mr Saxon in the cabinet room is John Simm, unless the bbc decided to use a look alike which is completely unlikely. However if you can be sure it is John Simm doing the voice-over, find a way of proving it before it goes on to this article.--MrWez 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources. This is crystal-ball gazing. Even the assumption that all of the footage will appear in some episode or other isn't reliable--some scenes could be cut between the trailer and the broadcast. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Um, if all of this is true then why even run the risk of having a Saxon photo on the Sound of Drums page? After all it could easily be from this episode, we don't know. --Anguirus111 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Absolutely correct. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Ha, ha. I meant that as a joke. Oh well...--Anguirus111 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Most of the references to Saxon in wiki I've seen have refered to them as being from the trailer if something say's it's from an episode... this is easliy resolved by changing it. Deletionists should not be allowed to remove such references completely.--Dr who1975 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • To conform to the copyright policy we need, at a minimum, to know that the image illustrates something about the subject of the article, what it illustrates about the article, and how that illustration is necessary. We can't do that on the current information about the episode which is the subject of this article. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After listening to the 'fire and ice' voiceover several times, I'm personally pretty certain it's not John Simm's voice. More like the guy who says 'Run!' Who's that? Anyway..it's all irrelevant speculation since the soundtrack and the images are all out of sequence, so there is no way of knowing what's going on until all the episodes screen.. that's why its called a 'teaser'.Gwinva 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And it turns out not to be John Simm, but the psychic boy from Human Nature. There we go. Kelvingreen 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The psychic boy's voice is different from the one in trailers: either: a) the boy forsees Saxon using the phrase; b) the boy forsees Baines using it, or c) It is Simm's voice deliberately recorded to throw off fans. Take your pick :) Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the caption's presence in Wikipedia, but'... logic tells us that such a memorable phrase, at such a prominent point in the trailer, must be something highly important (like, for example, a line spoken by one Time Lord about another...)!--Rambutan (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumors

I removed a rumors section added by BiggerontheInside because rumors and speculation don't conform to our policies of Verifiability (WP:V) and No original research (WP:NOR). --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Handwaving, speculation and weaseling

I've removed most of the cast notes section. The removed text reads as follows:

He [Tom Ellis] has been spotted on a beach with Freema Agyeman (who was wearing SAS-style clothing). Similarly, The Sun has reported that Elize Du Toit's character is named "Miss Dexter" and is a villain. Doctor Who Magazine #381 confirmed her casting but did not say whether she would be good or bad.

The Sun has also reported that John Simm will appear in the finale as the Doctor's arch-nemesis the Master. Although this has not been confirmed or denied by official sources, an interview with The Independent on Sunday seems to confirm Simm's casting. Simm refused to confirm that he had been cast in an interview broadcast on BBC 6Music on February 13 2007, but also did not deny the story outright.

Clips at the series three press launch have shown Simm and on the Newsround report on the 22nd March show Tennant and Simm both referred to the character as 'Mr Saxon'. Tennant also goes onto say that he's 'more than a match for the Doctor in ways he hadn't thought possible'.

Gossip and entertainment columns in tabloid newspapers are not reliable sources. The Independent isn't a tabloid and the researcher for the interview can be assumed to have made a good effort to get his facts right, but that reference only confirms that as early as February Simm had been publicly identified as The Master.

A few more words about the above: "refused to confirm...but did not deny" is weaseling. It's a common technique in yellow journalism when there isn't a story or the sources are poor but the journalist needs to write column inches to sell the paper. We don't do it. If there's nothing to write and no good sources, we write nothing. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with the removal of any 'fact' only substantiated by British tabloids. The Sun, Daily Mirror etc etc, are not reliable sources.Gwinva 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's citable information. That beats a lot of other stuff. But I think there's an unresolved conflict between the unreliability and the relevance of what is printed in the name of publicity. Maybe, instead of 'Rumour', we should label such things 'Puffery'? Zhochaka 12:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Image of Captain Jack

I've taken the liberty of removing the image of Captain Jack [1] recently added to the page. My understanding is it's a publicity photo of filming on location and not of a scene from the episode. Mark H Wilkinson 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. Since it appears to be in Cardiff anyway, it's probably from "Utopia".--Rambutan (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on some wording.

In the preceding series, the Doctor is referred to as "the Last of the Time Lords" by the watch storing his Time Lord consciousness when opened by Latimer in Human Nature.

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me because it says 'in the preceding series'. To me that means Series 2 or 1 of this show, but it's referring to something that happened 'this' series. I changed the wording but it got reverted with no reason given and I really think it needs to be clarified. Thoughts?--Anguirus111 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A note regarding a prior 'Last of the Time Lords'.

I've removed the note on Last of the Time Lords as an early title of the TV movie [2] because, as it happens, it's not true (and therefore not easy to verify). I think the inclusion may have arisen due to conflating the TVM and the Daltenrays project, an attempt to get an actual motion picture off the ground; the latter had the title Doctor Who - Last of the Time Lords at one point (cf. p 76-77 of Philip Segal's and Gary Russell's Regenerations or [3]), even having publicity material printed to that effect. But I'm not about to dump this into the article, because it doesn't strike me as notable; the film was never made and may not have had any influence on naming this episode. Mark H Wilkinson 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, since the phrase has been used before, although I can't believe RTD would not have noticed the significance. Since the Dalentry's film was well known (and synopses in circulation) I think a brief note is worthwhile - afterall Evolution of the Daleks notes that the "...of the Daleks" title construction dates back to a working title (The Return of the Daleks). Timrollpickering 23:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your referencing seems to have gone slightly askew on the page. As I'm not wholly sure what you're aiming to do there, I'm not sure what to fix. Mark H Wilkinson 10:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I copied that from Geography of the Odyssey as it was the nearest page to hand with a book reference in it, but that's using a bibliography, with the footnotes linking to it. I'll try again. Timrollpickering 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Press Release

The BBC Press release [4] is now available. It gives away one of the most open secrets regarding the season arc (and I see someone's already tried to put it in the synopsis). How much of the info from this (and I don't mean copying line for line) should we try to include in the article, if anything? Mark H Wilkinson 12:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All of it, pretty much. It's all sourced.--Rambutan (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a spoiler tag exists for wikipedia, someone should probably slap that on this page.--Anguirus111 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines suggest we don't use them on sections people can expect to discuss such episode details. Mark H Wilkinson 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}} The current synopsis is a copyright violation of the official synopsis (in the source). I suggest you use the modified one from this version.--Rambutan (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please add {{Master Stories}} to the bottom of the article. Will ^(talk) 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not actually a dispute, WP:CITE is quite clear. The three-parter stuff did not have a cite-tag or weblink, thus it was unsourced, and in breach of policy.--Rambutan (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know: I asked Majorly to do it to stop the edit war between Digby and the IP. We could say:

"It is part of an arc spanning three episodes starting with "Utopia (Doctor Who)" and ending with this episode""Series 2, Episode 11". Totally Doctor Who. 2007-05-15. BBC. BBC One.

Or something like that. Will ^(talk) 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if that's true. I didn't watch TDW, but it must have a source. It's not a dispute unless both sides have policies on their side. I'm for unprotection now.--Rambutan (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Utopia leads into the two parter, at least according to the spoiler blogs I've read (which we certainly can't use as sources). But that's not quite the same as the assertion that Utopia is the first of a three part story; nobody tries to assert that Logopolis and Castrovalva are an eight-parter, for example. Mark H Wilkinson 15:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC) - Well he was wrong.

On the page for "Utopia", it's sourced to TDW. It wasn't me!--Rambutan (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I moved the note about the TDW presenter's description of Utopia to pre-broadcast publicity in the hope it would satisfy those eager to rewrite episode numbering etc. As you can see, it didn't work. From where I stand, a line from a children's television presenter doesn't supercede established information from DWM unless it's accompanied by a new statement from someone far more reliable/official. (Not that I have anything against TDW, it's just way behind CBC Newsround and the BBC Wales production office as a reliable source of information.) Mark H Wilkinson 15:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. What's your view on unprotection?--Rambutan (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, we're supposed to resolve a dispute (assuming it's still classed as one) by discussion in order to justify unprotecting an article. Which sounds great in theory, but the IPs with which we were having to deal have yet to show any interest in any of the talk pages. I'd hate to see good contributors have to endure the aggravation of going through an admin for an exended period, just because someone's not willing to talk to us; then again, I can see the value of a short cooling off period (and by short, I mean one that doesn't extend beyond the next broadcast date, as we'll lose much of the workforce). Mark H Wilkinson 15:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And in the time it took me to get that out, we're unprotected. Typical. Mark H Wilkinson 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I managed to negociate it on IRC, after JWSchmidt decided not to unprotect (see his wisdoms below).--Rambutan (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested unprotection.--Rambutan (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

On IRC, JWSchmidt says: "I'd be happy to have those two Wikipedia pages remain protected for at least a month....it might give the editors a chance to actually learn about the topics and edit without having to argue", as an update to the situation.--Rambutan (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Wikipedia does not need these articles and they attract editors who cannot get along. A simple solution is to lock them down" and "Rambutan, I think you should become an administrator, then you can do as you like". Not really in the spirit of adminship guidelines, the protection policy or the concept of Wiki, but there you are.--Rambutan (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, everything's unprotected now.--Rambutan (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironic

I found it ironic that a debate over whether certain links should be in the article where the Wikipedia is not censored argument is used is itself censored .Garda40 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because the conversation has served its purpose and was only used as a vehicle to attack homosexuals. Next, please. Will ^(talk) 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the more obnoxious material as the start of the debate does provide the rationale as to why the link is there if people wonder why Garda40 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to provide rationale to every outward link on talk pages. Will ^(talk) 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What I said on this matter did not attack homosexuals - I merely stated an opinion on the irrelevance and inappropriate nature of the link. My comment has been censored - the person who did it is a hypocrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.105.96.154 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) My comment about being censored has now been censored - I will not get involved in an editing war - please leave this comment on - then at least people can check the history of this page and see that I was right. 83.105.96.154 16:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed your comment because it was not signed. See WP:SIG. Also see WP:POINT, which says "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". This conversation isn't serving a purpose, so button it.--Rambutan (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then can we agree that the comment you removed be restored? 83.105.96.154 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not unless you explain how it enriches Wikipedia, bearing in mind WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:CON and WP:POINT.--Rambutan (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest to resolve this dispute the source in question be changed to http://www.johnbarrowman.com/ - surely no one can have any argument about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.105.96.154 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The news is the news. If you've got an objection against homosexuality, go nominate Gay for deletion. As it's corrupting the morals of youth. Will ^(talk) 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we just ignore this: any removal is vandalism, and it's a waste of time discussing it, since these guys can never concede that policy is policy.--Rambutan (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that the site links to a site with porn on it. The fact that it is gay porn is irrelevant. As a compromise I have posted a link to John Barrowman's site. As I am sure you know he is gay (I do not have a problem with that) the difference is that his website does not contain porn. Surely the whole point is that the text is verified - use this link and it will be verified. End of story. 83.105.96.154 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The source says Barrowman will be attending, but not Agyeman. The gay.com news item does. I also doubt you actually visited the site, just that you saw "gay.com" and assumed there was pornography. If you even bothered reading PlanetOut's community guidelines, you'd see that only premium members can see adult photos. Will ^(talk) 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Even if it did contain pornography, that would be acceptable for Wikipedia (see WP:CENSOR). As we have explained, if you disagree with that policy, then that is your privilege, but you may not speak out about it except in the correct place. This is the wrong place. Editors are obliged to revert censorship within articles. If you wish to debate the policy and its value, then you must do so on a general policy page, not in a specific article. Try here, for example.

Also, if you choose to allow your children on the Internet, then you must take the rough with the smooth. Sure, kids will find objectionable content on the Internet, and you, as a father, must make a balance between the positive value of the Internet and its negative applications. Examine possibilities of filtering. But, above all, no website is legally obliged to remove material because it's asked, unless the material is libellous, a copyright violation etc...; just because you can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that you have free reign to dictate what you consider to be acceptable content, if your definition is at odds with everyone else's. I hope that's clear and we won't need to hear any more about it.--Rambutan (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT edited the material out as you seem to accuse me of. I am merely discussing it in a civil manner I have even given you a perfectly reasonable alternative which would suit everyone apart from yourself and Will it would seem. It seems to me that the two of you are dictating what goes on this page to everyone else. 83.105.96.154 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your alternative is not reasonable as it contains less information than our link. You have been attempting to censor Wikipedia, which is not allowed.--Rambutan (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across this page during RC patrol. Its pretty clear to me that the site being discussed has the complete information, even if it has some content which might not be acceptable to everyone. As WP editors, it is our job to provide references and make sure the text can be verified. What content the refs/links have is none of our business, we simply have to keep whatever reliable sources we have and use them to reference the text. To the anon Sir/Madam who has raised objections, please have a look at WP:CENSOR to see why this is so. Regards,xC | ☎ 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rambutan as you are so keen on quoting rules to me may I refer you to this WP:BURO before you edit anymore of my posts. 83.105.96.154 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. I haven't edit a single one of your posts; I've just deleted a few because they were rude, vulgar or merely unsigned.--Rambutan (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let bygones be bygones, and bury these differences. If both sides remain civil, I'm sure we'll have no further problems. Whatever the issue is, we can sort that out logically and respectfully.

Rambutan - if you believe a comment is rude/vulgar/whatever the case may be, remove the comment. But please do also add in a placeholder comment stating why it was removed, and who the original poster was, with a diff if possible. If it shouldn't have been removed, this makes it easier to figure out.

Anon 83.......154 - please do sign your posts and refrain from profanity. I haven't gone through the history looking for the diffs to prove or disprove what either party is saying. The fact is, we're all volunteers here, with nothing to gain from these virtual arguments except a high blood pressure and dislike for some faceless stranger sitting halfway across the globe.

Whatever it is that needs to be discussed, do discuss it. Argue about it, but politely. Debate. Don't abuse each other, don't use language which is demeaning. It is an opportunity to meet someone with different views, or who feels differently about something than how you hold them. And at the end of the day, remember we are trying to write an encyclopedia. If something helps the encylopedia, do it. Anything which harms it, hurts the editors, or pushes us away from our final goal should be avoided.

My apologies if this (intended) small post turned into a lecture. I've come across tons of pages during recent changes patrol which all deal with the same arguments over and over again. Anon Sir/Madam what you are bringing up is an issue which has been discussed over and over right from when WP started. Run a google search on it, or look through the archives on some talk pages of controversial articles (eg. related to genitals/sexual orientation) You'll find a lot of things there which apply equally well here. But first and foremost we are writing an encyclopedia, if something needs a reference, then it should have a reference. And what other content the ref page has should not concern us, that is irrelevant to our goals. So long as it a reliable source, we should not concern ourselves with what else is on that page.

Perhaps it would be best if I ended this post now. Anon Sir/Madam, please do consider signing up for an account, clearly you know how things work around here and know your way around. We could do with editors like you. My best wishes to both you and Rambutan,xC | ☎ 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice xC for the record I have never used any vulgarity or profanity on Wikipedia. Nor have I been rude to others. I have tried to settle this amicably with Rambutan but he has stated on my user page that he doesn't want to let bygones be bygones. I have done all I can and that is all I have to say on the matter. 83.105.96.154 16:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[5] Mr IP, all I said was that you aren't in a position to debate bygones, since you're in clear violation of WP:POINT.--Rambutan (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I think its worth adding under trivia (or similar). "In an effort to keep the ending secret, TV reviewers will not be given a preview of the episode." This is verified by http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6760000/newsid_6763700/6763787.stm Kelpin 09:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(I'd add it myself but the page is protected). Kelpin 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Added. Just a note: they did something similar to Doomsday last year. Will ^(talk) 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kelpin 10:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Saxon?

Is it safe to assume the Masters wife is human?--Poodleman 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was safe to assume that, because RTD said so, the Master wasn't coming back. --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't assume anything without a reliable source.--Rambutan (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If I was a dalek, I'd turn for her. And I'm not even a dalek! Quite a hottie. I'll assume she's human until Saxon unscrews the lid on her head and takes out a giant-sized HB pencil. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

She has to be human because The Doctor did that thingy to make TARDIS only go back to where it was before the year 100 Trillion...so unless The Master found another ship adn travled to another planet during that 18 mouths then She's definitely Human.-- User:Flameninja311 20:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true - that is not a logical statement - it is highly likely that she is human - howeever - not impossible that she is of another race - after all, the TV series has been continual in its attempts to take over the Earth by other races. She could, hypothetically, for example, be slitheen in human guise. Or another race. she may, even, be anopther time lord in human form unkown to anyone (including herself). However, she is most likely to be human. Unlikely to survive... Or she will and be a major plt device - after all she has shown her ability to 'act innocent' to that reporter... but did seem horrified at her death.Crescent 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think she'll be the person who survives part 1, only to get killed before doing anything useful early on in part 2.

You mean it's not another version of Romana? Shame The Tribe of Gum 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Are the recent contributions of any import to this specific episode? Are there any links to any third party source where this is being discussed? Will this speculation form any part of the article? If not, then it violates WP:FORUM and can be removed. LessHeard vanU 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

slitheen have to be in fat people and she isnt fat ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 12:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I wasn't trying to make this simple question a forum..I was simply stating that we do not have enough proof to list Lucy saxon as a human--Poodleman 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Or any evidence to suggest otherwise. Until it becomes an issue within the programme itself, I think it's safe to assume that she's human. Anything else is idle speculation. You could use the same lack of proof to build an argument that Dr. Tom Milligan was a modified Ogron sent to spy on the resistance by a cadre of Dalek hybrids bred by Caan on the dark side of the Moon. Possible (remotely) but highly unlikely. As is any pronouncement that Lucy is anything other than human. 12.22.250.4 18:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't The Master state "A timelord, traveling the stars with his human companion" and gesture to her during the episode? That would be enough for me. Hewinsj 18:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you mean that. Are you arguing that the gesture is meant to indicate that Lucy is or isn't human? 12.22.250.4 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is human. I was quoting from memory, but he said something similar to that and gestured to her to indicated that she was his human companion and that he took her to the end of time. She then indicates that she gave up caring about anything because of what she saw there. Hewinsj 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear from the way you stated it (my bad). You are correct. If we were given to speculation, we could make all sorts of counter-arguments from that (that he believed incorrectly that she is human; that he knew she isn't human but wished the Doctor to think she is; etc.), but if we take it literally, the Master is indicating that Lucy is his human companion, and she then confirms that she has travelled with him. 12.22.250.4 20:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

{{Fandom}}

Could we use {{fandom}}, or is it against a specific policy?--Rambutan (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure what you mean? --82.11.73.165 18:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

{{talkheader}}

Just a very gentle reminder that the above template exists at the top of this page for a reason... I didn't particularly care to see that the header was removed previously, since it seemed a rather uncivil response to a very polite comment. Please ensure that it doesn't happen again. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 18:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Loss of some discussion from this page

On this page and on a talk page linked to an article about an adjacent episode, there have been some rather hamfisted attempts by an editor to enforce his interpretation of WP:FORUM. There has also been an intervention by at least one relatively inexperienced admin. Please do not edit war with these people, they will be dealt with if they continue to disrupt discussion. Do feel free to continue necessary discussion. This is what this page is for. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response here.--Rambutan (talk) 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Teasers

Does anyone know if there are going to be teasers throughout the week, like the two previous finales? Harry matthews 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. There are, however, three different versions of the coming soon trailer doing the rounds: the one which followed SoD; the version shown on BBC One on Monday and available on the official website which has the same footage with added captions and the image of Martha and the Doctor in front of the Tradis at the end; and a third shown on Richard and Judy earlier, mostly the same footage with more of Professor Docherty (?) including her asking what's inside (a Toclafane). Maybe they'll just bring out more of these.81.96.75.186 22:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Harriet Jones?

In the brief second in the "Coming next..." trailer of The Sound of Drums, we see Martha, a man and a red haired, older woman looking into the Toclafane sphere... Isn't she Harreit Jones? At 00.22 of this vid: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dkY9dV9v9EA - NP Chilla 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No. It's the character played by Ellie Haddington, Professor Docherty. Mark H Wilkinson 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Then who's the guy then right after Martha at the beginning of the clip?--Anguirus111 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Milligan played by Tom Ellis - Harry matthews 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Just making sure that whoever it was, was credited on the page.--Anguirus111 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - now I know. :) - NP Chilla 00:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding the BBC Three repeat

Speaking as a regular wiki reader, by reading the BTS section, it says that the initial broadcast is 50 minutes but the repeats are 55. Does that mean that the repeats are going to feature more footage than the original showing to accomodate for that extra five minutes? I only say this because if that is the case, something should be mentioned on the page about it instead of being possibly implied(if at all).--Anguirus111 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of that line is that said timeslot does not indicate running time, but rather the amount of time the channel extends for the program to use. This would invariably include advertising and other such things, lessened in the case of primetime slots. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well I guess that makes sense, thanks.--Anguirus111 01:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Leo Jones?

Interesting contradiction here... Reggie Yates (Leo Jones, Martha's brother) isn't in the cast list on the BBC Factfile, but he *is* listed in the Radio Times. It's hard to tell which is the most reliable source (although, in my fanwankish opinion, he's been deliberately left off the fact file as an RTD misdirection), so should he be listed on here? --IanIanSymes 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Course! RT is always good for castlists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie_Harrison (talk • contribs)

The RT is a very reliable source for this kind of info. Mark H Wilkinson 14:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Remnants of Utopia?

Are we going to find out the actual point of the episode Utopia in this episode? There were many unfinished points from there, such as does Utopia actually exist (from what I could make out, it was simply a computer program), or where the people in the rocket actually went. Otherwise it seems rather pointless, apart from showing how the Master got the TARDIS in the first place. Gammondog 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If and when the Utopia plot threads are resolved, we can put the info in the appropriate articles. I noticed yesterday that there was a question about the Archangel logo (on Martha's phone and Francine's laptop) on the Talk page of "42", which it was felt should not be mentioned until we knew the significance, if any. Perhaps once the series is over for the summer, we can catch up on loose ends that have since been tied up. If they still dangle, however, it does us no good to speculate here. --Karen | Talk | contribs 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got the awful feeling the Toclafane have ALOT to do with the people in the rocket. Humans. We'd do anything for the latest upgrade.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.12.43 (talk • contribs)

Well... the captured one referred to the sky being made of diamonds... 193.195.0.102 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any proof for the statement that the episode is going to be set one year later? The url linked to says nothing of the sort. 58.174.144.127

I doubt there's a link seeing as he said it on a tv show. But the clips I've seen on youtube from GMTV and Totally Doctor Who seem to imply that some time has changed.--Anguirus111 22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2009

If it is set 12 months later than last week's episode, that places it later than Invasion of the Bane, which may be useful for The Sarah Jane Adventures when it finally airs...and maybe even K-9 Adventures, even if it never makes any direct references back to Doctor Who. That'll just leave Torchwood, which is still in 2008, whether that be February as per the poster or circa. August/September going by the time taken in Random Shoes and the inference in Greeks Bearing Gifts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.249.23 (talk)

Could be reset to make it like it never happened. Once it airs we can make continuity judgements. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened. And the Master will be back, that much is implied by the ending... 193.195.0.102 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I called it. Well, that's enough bragging. Continuity problem solved. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Face of Boe

Jacks the Face of Boe who would beleave it

The Doctor for one doesn't. And there's quite a gaping plot hole if he is: the Face of Boe died, when it's been established that Jack can't. 82.95.254.249 19:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's merely that he can't be killed. 193.195.0.102 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not explicitly stated that he is the Face of Boe, just partly implied. He may not be, and the article should show this.--Andrewjd 19:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

in the Doctor Who Confidential following Utopia it was suggested that the face of boe's story is not over

Anyway, the Doctor has been known to be wrong. And he's lived 5 billion years, and at the end he was actually powering the New New York motorway, so it's possible that he wasn't immortal, he just had an EXTREMELY long life.--Andy mci 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it said that Boe had lived longer than that? The only thing said definatively about Jack's condition was that the Doctor didn't know how to reverse it. Living that long Jack could well have found out how (it was implied that Boe chose to die just as he had choosen not to in the series before). Makes one wonder about the loins of Boe that RTD mentioned before...AlanD 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor doesn't disbelieve it. Listen to his inflection and watch his face when he says 'No!' :incredulity, laughter, 'Who'd have thought' 'but it all makes sense' kind of thoughts. We often use 'No!' as a general exclamation meaning 'That's amazing!'. The Doctor now knows, but Jack doesn't. He's never met the Face of Boe (as far as we know). Gwinva 07:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just rewatched and I'd agree.AlanD 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Key points - add your own, I'm still too much in shock

Captain Jack is the Face of Boe?

The Master may have survived (perhaps transferring his consciousness to Lucy)

Martha Jones leaves?

The Toclafane were the last of humanity from Utopia

The Time Lord gun that never was.

Broken Tardis?

Titanic

New Time Lord Empire

The Doctor crying at the death of the Master

What Utopia was really like

The revolution on the Valiant (failed)

Those who remember and those who don't

Lucy's growing distain for the Master and her shooting of him

Laser screwdriver has isomorphic controls (only the Master could operate it)

Statues of the Master everywhere even on Mount Rushmore

And so much more...AlanD 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From Confidential - Perhaps not Martha's final appearance. VERY strongly implied that it is her last appearance in her current capacity. May return as a recurring occasional character (ties in with the phone). Implied by producer, actress and episode. Stated by Tennent.AlanD 19:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is strongly implied that it's her last regular appearance. As there have been many reports of her returning next series, it's also extremely possible that she will return at the end of the christmas episode. Dvyuk 22:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No it was stated that it was her last appearance in her current capacity, what was implied is that she will return in some fashion. Reports are just rumour, these were statements from the crew, cast and from within the storyAlanD 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think before any more arguing about Martha's future we should wait until monday when, according to the audio commentary, there will be an announcement about what will be happening with the character. Dvyuk 00:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Was it just me, or was this the most...powerful...episode in the new series so far? More so than the Ninth Doctor's face-off against either the single Dalek or the Emperor, and more so than the loss of Rose Tyler. He is, as far as he knows, most definitely the Last of the Time Lords (for now), he's losing Martha, his efforts to save humanity in Utopia almost destroyed the Earth, and Jack may or may not be The Face of Boe. The sheer raw emotion in this episode should, I believe, at least be mentioned. Tim 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

True though that may be, an outside source would have to say that for it to be inclusion worthy. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Last recurring appearance of Jack?

Huh? Where'd this come from? --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 19:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know I would imagine that Jack leaving and saying he wanted to be with his team could have prompted it. It certainly has currently left the series.AlanD 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the revised sentence is better. --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack has to return to Cardiff otherwise Torchwood can't screen... doesn't mean DW won't make use of him in the future from time to time. We can't speculate either way. Gwinva 07:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

When Jack was attacking the Toclafane at the TARDIS, a soldier remarks "we're gonna get slaughtered!" and Jack responds "That happens to me a lot." Aside from the fact that he now has a tendancy to find death in both Torchwood and DW, perhaps the situation and comment is a reference to his first death with the Daleks? Tim 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fandom

I've added the Fandom template based on the large amount of downright stupid edits the article was getting. Any objections?

Nope. --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the TFD on The template, I have to agree with them that it does not belong on article pages. I moved it to the talk page. Zytch 19:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with deleting it. It won't stop people making poor edits and ignoring the talk page. The article will be stable by around 10pm at the latest as it always is regardless of whether it is there or not. It won't help and it is rude. AlanD 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Return of the Jedi/Female Master

Did anyone else notice that the Master's funeral was a shot for shot copy of Vader's funeral from Return of the Jedi? It would be great if we could find some sourcing for that, as it has to be intentional.

Also, female Master at the end there. Crikey. Is that the first female Time Lord in the show? Kelvingreen 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. See Romana, Susan Foreman, and the Rani. Zytch 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, of course. Silly me. Kelvingreen 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

the ending was abit like flash gordon--Lerdthenerd 19:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The other half said that too, just needed Ming's laugh over the top. But is the feeling sufficient to mention it?AlanD 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that RTD probably loves the Flash Gordon movie, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was a nod. It's definitely ROTJ though. Kelvingreen 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The woman isn't the Master. His consciousness is presumably inside the ring, with his laughter used just to confirm he's not dead - 90.241.147.75 19:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just re-watched this part a couple of times. The laughter isn't clearly The Master's. It sounds deep, but it has a distinctly feminine sound to it. Tierus 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Simm to me, just distorted slightly. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the Master's laughter. Simm confirms having done/recorded it in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BMEfLIjIhc - he says (about the Master) "yeah he was [burnt on the funeral pyre] but he was cackling as well at the end". The andyman 0 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotta say, I think the Jedi and Flash references are indeed present, considering The Master and Ming are, like Moriarty and Fu Manchu, often categorised as typical Svengali villains or nemeses, and that both scenes, as referenced, are almost but not-quite identical in their intent and content. It'll probably take RTD making a press statement before anyone takes it seriously though.

Radical AdZ 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair it isn't a case of taking it seriously. I do take these comparisons very seriously and believe them to be deliberate; it is more that we need it to be verifiable to be able to include it in here, sorry.AlanD 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no prob, I get the logic. I'm just one of those wierd, impish people who will, provided I believe it, say anything or write anything whether I can prove it or not. But hey, you guys have got a system, which is more than I've got, so fair enough. Radical AdZ 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Ellis

Do we need the Tom Ellis bit? One Year Later is established in the first minute of the episode. Do we need an outside "confirmation"? AlanD 19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Titanic

Am i forgetting something or when the Titanic hit the TARDIS... there was no water coming in? After hitting the Titanic, the TARDIS would've ricocheted a bit.. so water should be coming in. Sigh

Also, the Ninth doctor explained that he was on an unsinkable ship once, so either theres going to be a contuity error or the Doctor meets himself 86.6.40.28 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Jamie

On a ship the size of the Titanic, I would believe it is rather possible to spend days on it and not come in contact with everyone on board. Zytch 19:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find the Titanic has actually materialised inside the TARDIS. Or at least, we'll find that out in about six months' time. So, no water necessary. Mark H Wilkinson 19:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be that as the TARDIS is all but indestructable. Shouldn't discuss further or speculate here, we can only state what did happen or was stated etc. AlanD 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The 9th doctor did talk people out of boarding the titanic and I think it was implied he was on board, which is now breaking the Timelord law by meeting himself. And since when could a boat break the tardis, unless he accidentally materialised around part of the ship, which I would doubt, we will have to wait NIKKKIN 19:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that the Doctor has never met himself, which is hardly the case. MartinMcCann 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We can say that a ship named the Titanic breaks through a wall of the console room, or words to that effect. But that's more of a plot element than a continuity reference. What's clear is that the ship doesn't come through that part of the TARDIS which is demonstrably connected to its exterior: the doorway. Mark H Wilkinson 19:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am new to talk so please bear with me as I experiment with formatting. The White Star Titanic did not carry life rings with the ship's name on it. What emergency consumables, Life vests, blankets and such that were used, bore only the white star logo. This so they could be swapped as needed between the ships in the fleet. This makes the ship at hand another Titanic. Reading the talk pages I see speculation is frowned upon. I want to think that it could be that the Doctor is confused because he knows this "fact." That said this use of Titanic labeled life rings in film and other media adaptation is a sore point amongst Titanic history fans. This point is bound to come up again.SheepDoll 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. When you have 5 seconds of screentime to show viewers it's the Titanic, then you write 'Titanic' on something, whether it was there in real life or not. A rather minor liberty with history when placed beside the Titanic striking the TARDIS (which we know for a fact didn't really happen. Strewth! The liberties screenwriters take... you'd think they'd do basic research. Everyone knows it was an iceberg...). Now for my turn at complete speculation.. we know the Ninth Doctor was on the Titanic, and at least one other incarnation (which one? in one of the spin-offs? only a vague memory lurking in my head somewhere). What a good Christmas special that would make... another The Two (Three/Four) Doctors. After all, RTD denied he would bring back old doctors, in much the same way he denied he'd bring back the Master. Such an event would be a good reason to get Martha out of the way for a while, too. Guess we'll have to wait... Gwinva 07:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question in more detail than any sane person could ever want... The proposed movie screenplay The Jewels of Time would have had a flashback to a pre-Hartnell Doctor on the Titanic (as described in the book The Nth Doctor), there were two spin-offs featuring the Seventh Doctor on the ship (the DWM comic strip "Follow That TARDIS!" and the NA novel The Left-handed Humming-bird). The Daleks' propaganda says that they pushed the iceberg into the boat in the first place (from one of the sixties Dalek annuals, don't know which, sorry). And Fourth Doctor had a newspaper about the Titanic disaster in "The Invasion of Time". 80.47.187.130 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool...now that's more than I remembered. Just think what fun you could have tying up all those loose ends! Wish we could... (I know, I know, this is not a forum. Excuse me this once). Gwinva 08:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the chameleon circuit started working and the TARDIS became an iceberg. Teepan95 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the Tardis in flight when the Titanic came through the wall? I suspect it's some kind of HyperTitanic, that sails on the Seas of Time :D

No water comes in because the upper hull (the part which breached the TARDIS, as indicated by the railing) is good deal above wherever the water would be. Provided the ship hadn't yet sunk, of course. And as Titanic seems to have breached right through the doors, I speculate that when the camera pulls out in six months' time, we shall see a police box impaled upon the ship's bow. Much to the bewilderment of a very startled Jack and Rose... The Good Ol' Country Doctor ^{ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 06:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is the "small" matter of size. The Tardis is bigger on the inside, actually the Titanic may fit, but.... It is just 'peeping in'. How does the part of the Titanic compare with the smaller outside? I believe the part sticking in is much larger than the police box. So.....how strange will it look on the outside where a HUGE part of a ship goes missing in a much smaller box? That is a trick I would want to see explained away. Only one thing springs to mind...It is not the famous Titanic but a ..wel, lets wait and find out.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 23:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So, who do you think will be the "Big Baddie" next series?

Although it's farfetch'd, I reckon that the blonde "sinister women" is none other than Rani. The Doctor only saw her for a split second, and she may have been hidden by a perception filter, so he wouldn't of thought she is a Timelord. The person picking up the Masters ring at the end is Rani, who is now working with The Master. The Master kept quiet about her to the Doctor so he would not stop her if things went wrong (which they did), allowing her to get his ring, which must signify something.

I know it is stupidly farfetch'd, but I reckon it could work, and is plausable. Thoughts?

86.6.40.28 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Jamie

Can't be mentioned if there is no source. Can't really discuss speculation here. I thought it was clearly Lucy's hand (she was wearing the nail varnish to go with her dress. AlanD 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Red nail polish implies Lucy, but the hand looked older than her. We shall see. Kelvingreen 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the arch-villain for the next series will be Davros as he was a much more recognisable villain than the Rani. I seem to remember Russel T Davies or some other prominent script-writer saying he had a pattern in his head for the return of each of the main antagonists. The Daleks first, then the Cybermen, then the Master and there would be one more big villain to go. I think the Rani will be returning eventually though. I think the idea of the Sinister Woman being the Rani was a good one one however. The Sinister Woman was a rather interesting character and I should like to see her return. I should imagine the hand seen picking up the Master's Ring was probably Lucy's however.

The podcast (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/doctorwho/doctorwho-seriesthree/doctorwho-seriesthree_20070630-2000_40_st.mp3) confirms that the hand that picks up the ring is indeed that of the rani, however she wont be returning next season, and it was a plot device that can be picked up on in a future series to bring back the master. I'd add it to the main article, but unsure as to which section it'd fit into. 82.36.238.48 13:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Russell doesn't say "That's the Rani's hand." The podcasters talked about how there was "debate" as to whether to include this scene - there was discussion about how the hand actually belonged to some floor manager or suchlike who had to have the red nail polish applied, and then Davies said that he personally has no plans to bring the Master back next season, but that this scene was included so that "future production teams" (ie, after he leaves next season) could use it to bring back the Master if they wanted to.PaulHammond 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

publicity

The BBC's "Fear Forecaster" reviews of the episode were not publicized on the official website until the Monday after the episode aired on Saturday.

This appears to describe an event that occurs in the future, that doesn't make sense.--Captain carter 19:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It won't on Monday. It is written neutrally. I don't know who put it in but I think it is fine.AlanD 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

flash gordon referance

please stop deleting the flash gordon outside reference--Lerdthenerd 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding it, unless you can verify it was intentional without question. --77.99.30.226 20:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

the reference is pure opinion, please read WP:CITE--The internet is serious business 20:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ok i agree but the reference with the master singing is not opinion please put it back.--Lerdthenerd 20:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

and by the way Speed Air Man the previous episodes all have outside references--Lerdthenerd 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"outside references" is just another term for trivia. Plz read WP:TRIVIA, that is all--The internet is serious business 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case (as with any episode related articles), trivia doesn't fit anywhere else in the article. Putting references into the plot really hurts readability. --Edokter (Talk) 23:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If they're explicit references, it shouldn't. If it's something totally unverified like the Flash Gordon similarity, it's really not an issue in the first place as it just doesn't belong in the article. Phil Sandifer 03:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts not opinions plz

in other words, can we have less outbreaks of fan hysteria and see some proper editing? This constant addition of total rubbish and speculation was boring before it started--The internet is serious business 20:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia tag

Although the trivia has gone (sorry, "outside references") the tag might as well stay as no doubt rubbish will be added (and removed again) until the current fan wankalypse has died down.--The internet is serious business 22:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the section and the tag. Is this to be done to all Doctor Who episodes? Was the stuff for this episode any different to any other one?AlanD 22:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops... already removed it before reading the talk page. Since the trivia is gone, there was no point in letting it stay. --Edokter (Talk) 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how this is a valid point

"This suggests that his immortality will eventually cause him to become the creature known as the Face of Boe. However, he did not react at all when Martha mentioned the dying words of the Face of Boe in Utopia."

That second sentence doesn't carry any significance does it? Jack in human form did not know he was to become the face of boe. Therefore why should hearing about the Face of Boe carry signifcance for Jack? If people agree then delete!

"The Face of Boe" was one of Jack's nicknames as the poster boy for the Time Agency, so I guess hearing the name from Martha would be a little bit shocking for him. - PeeJay 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

but it could also be the title for said position as poster boy of the time agency, or he may have just assumed that it was a coincidence that it was the same name. (after all, for all jack knew, it could have been the face of some being named boe) --Alphamone 09:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understood the significance of the name. Jack is, I believe, from a village called Boeshane (sp?) on some as-yet unnamed planet, so that's why he was nicknamed "The Face of Boe". I'm not discounting the possibility that the Face of Boe we'd already seen and Captain Jack's nickname were named coincidentally, just saying why it's significant. - PeeJay 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This was just one of those little jokes, like the one at the end of Tooth and Claw, about the Royal Family all being werewolves. --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says they aren't... in the DW universe anyway?AlanD 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen someone here cast doubt on the spelling of the place name. As I heard the line, I was seeing "Boeotian Peninsula" in my mind. Jack is (I thought) from Earth (he mentions several 51st Century European locales in "The Doctor Dances"), and Boeotia is definitely on Earth. That said, Boeotia is not a peninsula, so maybe that's not how it's spelt. Can we get a source that gives a definitive spelling? 12.22.250.4 18:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Earth's Continents do shift though so who says that (in the Doctor Who Universe at least) Boeotia won't be a peninsula by the 51st Century? Kelpin 18:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot?

There are some important aspects off the plot that are missing from the article, the most pressing of which being The Masters desire to build a new Gallifrey.

Yes, how was he going to do that?

The thing about mad geniuses is, well, they're mad. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lifebelt

I can't figure out why the word is being changed but if you want sources for the term being lifebelt in Britain

With pictures [6], [7]

Where it's just mentioned [8],[9],[10]

To show the term is not just confined to Britain ,an australian use[11]

In Britannica online [12]

So therefore under MOS the use of a british name in a british tv show article is the name to us. Garda40 02:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry that was me! I'm in UK but being a kayaker we call them PFD (perosnal flotation device), I thought that lifebelt was the american term! duh....will change--The internet is serious business 10:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The only Time Lord left in existence

I can't quite shake this line off. The Doctor says this in regards of what to do with The Master, but I can't quite grasp what he's trying to say. The statement implies, at least to me before I start thinking about harder, that there is only one left, The Master, and that it is The Doctor's responsibility to take care of him. Or he could be implying that as the only Time Lord left once the Master is imprisoned, it is still his responsbility. I don't know if there is any sort of deeper meaning to that statement then that? Perhaps a reference to The Doctor's controversial half-human side?

Please do not use the talk page as a forum about the show or episode, only use the talk page for the discussion of issues on editing and information on the page itself (as per the talk page header). --Masem 04:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree. This is relevant. We've stated in the article (or the last version I read) that the Doctor planned to inprison him in the TARDIS. That was the Master's words. It is more strongly implied and stated by the Doctor that he wished to look after and care for the Master. His plans were rehabilitation, isolation and companionship I don't think it occured to the Doctor to call this inprisonment.AlanD 11:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree that this is relevant but I would also go with the idea of the Doctor being the only Time Lord left after the Master is kept in the TARDIS under the Doctor's care. Throughout the series the Doctor has stated that he is the last of the Time Lords and that he is a Time Lord, so it's unlikely that he would consider himself not to be when he finds the Master is still alive. Also, in The Runaway Bride the doctor tells Donna that being human is optional for him, and it could be argued that it was only the 8th Doctor that was half human, so I wouldn't think that that had anything to do with it. Also, i think i'm right in thinking that Russell T Davies disagreed with the doctor being half-human and that line in the Runaway Bride was used because of that. Dvyuk 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Master dies (well, bear with me on this.... :) ). On the question of whether that's that, well I'm sure Romana is out there somewhere. With a pocket watch she's strangely incurious about... --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuity

• For other episodes (see, for example, the last one), the Continuity section lists tie-ins to Torchwood. Surely Jack's decision to go back to the team that needs him is notable enough to include here?

• When the Doctor suggests keeping the Master with him aboard the TARDIS, was this a reference to Scream of the Shalka, or am I just speculating?

• Is it worth mentioning the laser screwdriver and the connections to Lazarus here? All there is to be say is in the previous episode's article, but I'm not sure whether that means it doesn't belong here.

• And the same goes for UNIT. This episode has as much UNIT as anything in the new series, but by this point maybe it's been established that UNIT is part of the normal background continuity in the new series, just as in the old, so it doesn't need to be explained? --75.36.137.202 08:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Scream of the Shalka: that was my interpretation, that this was a nod to the BBCi production, but Chris Eccleston's tenure as the "official" ninth doctor makes Scream non-canon, so I'm not sure that means anything. And it's all just speculation until someone close to the series definitively states otherwise. Re UNIT: problematic, in that the new series has never really explained UNIT. Anything you know about the organization is a priori. All mention in the new series is rather vague, so be very careful what you say; RTD has license to alter "the facts" as he sees fit, and he seems to have intended for Torchwood to replace UNIT, so what do we really know about them now (other than that they are a special force directed by the UN Security Council)? 12.22.250.4 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For "Scream," there's no reason the show can't reference non-canon, especially as a joke. (And if you follow the novels, comics, and audio plays, they've actually explained that Rose, Scream, and Curse of the Final Death are three alternate futures for the Eighth Doctor.) But the question is whether it's at all verifiable that this was an intended reference by Russ T. That not having been established, I don't think it can be added.

As for UNIT, it doesn't really matter how much the new-series UNIT has in common with the old-series UNIT. If anything, this episode gives more information to answer that question (doesn't Martha say that UNIT has "worked with Time Lords" or something to that effect?)--but again, that's irrelevant. What matters is that UNIT was very clearly referenced in this episode, and if any one episode's article requires a continuity reference to UNIT, this episode--which features UNIT as a major plot point, shows UNIT soldiers in action, and largely takes place on a UNIT flying fortress--is probably the one. That being said, the original poster's points are still valid. Someone would have to go through past new-series two-parters and see whether such references are typically listed in both episodes' articles, or only the first one. Also, it may be that by now, we (including people who know nothing of the old series) are expected to accept that UNIT is part of the Doctor Who world, so it's pointless to keep mentioning it (other than including it in the list of UNIT eps, which is already done). Still, I think it should be added.

And for Torchwood, the same is true.

As for Lazarus, that may be so obvious that it's not worth adding. Try to imagine whether, 5 years down the road, someone is going to need that mention to remember which episode the Master's aging ray came from. I doubt it.

Anyway, I'm going to add the UNIT and Torchwood refs, but I don't think the others are necessary. --76.205.215.197 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded on that note you added. Will ^(talk) 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Moore

I could be utterly wrong here but I asked a few people if they thought the same thing as me on this. Was it the same actress playing "the professor" in this episode as played "Mrs Moore" in Rise of the Cybermen and Age of Steel? If so was she this universe's version of the same person? If so there are dramatic parallels (inventivity and so on) but some differences (betraying the resisitance)... If it is the same character the differences can be explained away (Mrs. Moore changed her identity to protect her family, The Professor didn't get a chance and her son was captured). I'm not asking for a fan-chat on this but confirmation etc from folks as to whether this is her or not and if so whether it should be included or not (if so I think it should be in some capacity). ThanksAlanD 11:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Mrs Moore is played by Helen Griffin and the Professor is played by Ellie Haddington. LizzieHarrison 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody knows it was really Annie Lennox! :p --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic article link

Should there be a link to the RMS Titanic on this article page? It may not even be the actual Titanic; its bow appears much smaller than the real one's, and it was coloured white whereas the actual ship was black. For allwe know, it was simply a ship happened to be named Titanic. Gammondog 11:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

if it is the titabnic will the ninth doctor be in it because he was there clinging to a ice berg ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

total speculation as to whether it is the same ship. However, as the current fangasm hasn't died down yet I expect much speculation to be added (and then deleted)--The internet is serious business 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by speculation? It says Titanic, therefore it's the Titanic. MartinMcCann 19:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a ship which evidence suggests is called the Titanic. However, appearances can be deceptive in SF drama. Mark H Wilkinson 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So it's the Titanic. If it isn't the ship that was sunk by pack ice in 1912 then that will be a major revelation in the Christmas Special, therefore untill evidence to the contrary is provided, WYSIWYG. MartinMcCann 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and what you see is a ship called Titanic. Which doesn't verify it's the Titanic. We're not here to make guesses or assertions based on minimal evidence; in fact there are several policies and guidelines in place to dissuade us from doing so. (Well, when I say "to dissuade us from doing so", I actually mean "which are likely be rampantly ignored up until the date of broadcast.) Mark H Wilkinson 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The top of the Titanic was white. Underneath was a thin yellow stripe (which we can see from inside the TARDIS), then the rest was black. And using the size of the railing as reference, I'd say that all we see is in fact very much to scale. The Good Ol' Country Doctor ^{ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 06:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the BBC news item says, "The production team has also confirmed that the story, written by Russell, will follow on directly from the ending of series three where viewers witnessed the Titanic crash through the Tardis walls." I realise that happened after this discussion, but the point is that the BBC says it is the Titanic. That kinda says to me that it really is the Titanic! Whether it's pre-iceberg, post-iceberg or somehow lost in the Time Vortex remains to be seen. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

We seem to need a talk page for this talk page... can people PLEASE refrain from discussing things not related to the improvement of the article (WP:FORUM), and keep the Face of Boe/Jack stuff in one place? We're having five arguments here that are exactly the same. mattbuck 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Time Vortex

Somehow the master nows of Rose using the time vortex before killin Martha (unsigned by 81.79.226.252)

Could be mentioned but not really that important. He was Lord and Master of Earth and the TARDIS for a year. He had access to the TARDIS' files, UNIT files and TORCHWOOD files for all that time plus he could have tortured Jack for fun. Loads of ways he could have discovered information on the Doctor in that time so I'd say the fact he knows such a thing isn't all that relevant to the article... sorry. Oh and please sign your comments. AlanD 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He was listening to the Doctor's and Jack's conversation about it in Utopia (when he was still human). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.12.43 (talk • contribs)

Hopefully not Fancrap

Oooooooooooook... a few other things that have occured to me. Hopefully not fancrap. There are a few moments when the Doctor is floating where his auora appears to take the form of angelic wings gently beating (it wasn't just me who saw that was it?). This is a possible reference to the archangel network but it could have other significance. There has been a running thread through the new series (I think only since Tennent took over) of "the lonely God" or "the lonely angel" this hasn't really come to fruition perhaps until now. Tied into the "I forgive you"... I don't lknow, I'm rambling (not much sleep recently baby 3 arrived Friday morning). Has there been anything on published media, press releases, pod casts or reputable reviews that mentions an of this? Can't do anything with it unless it is sourced but perhaps worth looking out for? Not after a chat on it as its inappropriate for here but just wondering if anyone else had spotted this officially anywhere? AlanD 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Face of Boe

The Face of Boe bit at the end was obviously a shaggy dog story. I've rewritten our piece to reflect the humorous nature of that interlude. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, have you read any of the extensive discussions on this plot point in the Jack Harkness and Face of Boe Talk pages? In the commentary, Phil C and Julie G. both indicate that Jack is Boe, and when RTD calls it a theory they tell him not to backpedal on it. There is no indication, in either the episode or the commentary, that it is a shaggy dog story, a joke or a lie. There is wiggle room for it being a theory only, but your text strongly implies that it is definitely not true. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this, per what Karen said. Looks certain it wasn't a joke, whatever else it might've been. --77.99.30.226 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussions on those talk pages establish only two things: that stupidity could well rank near hydrogen in abundance in the universe, and that Davies enjoys a good joke. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually listened to the podcast? They give absolutely no indication that it's a joke; on the contrary, Davies tries to say he views it as a potential theory only to be shouted down by Collinson and Gardner for trying, in their view, to 'backpeddle', as they view it as a certainty. --77.99.30.226 10:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've listened, yes. It's obvious the Gardner and Collinson find the joke as amusing as Davies. --Tony Sidaway 11:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don Giovanni

It's not a reference, but that musical piece accompanying the sequence in which the Doctor rises and takes the Master down to earth dunnarf remind me of the scene in Don Giovanni where the Commendatore's statue comes to life and takes Don Giovanni down to hell. ("Don Giovanni, a cena teco m'invitasti", I think, "Don Juan, you invited me to dinner") --Tony Sidaway 01:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sun's astronomical name?

Under the Continuity subheading, the article states that, "Earth is referred to by its astronomical name Sol 3 (it is the third planet from the star Sol), as it was in The Deadly Assassin." I am by no means an astronomer or cosmologist, so please correct me (politely!) if I'm wrong about this issue. But, I believe the correct astronomical name for the Sun is just that -- the Sun. In astronomy, as I recall, the only use for the word "sol" is as a unit of time to denote a single Martian day. The Romans did refer to our sun as Sol because that's Latin, of course, and it was the Roman equivalent of the Greek sun god, Helios. Sol is commonly used in literature and other popular media as a name for our particular sun, usually in science fiction where it is often necessary to avoid confusion with other stars. (The name Luna is likewise often used as another name for the Moon.) Is the article simply referring to the name of the Sun as it is known within the fictional astronomy of the Doctor Who universe? If that is the case, perhaps it could be rephrased to make that distinction clearer, as the reference even contains a link to Wikipedia's article on real-world astronomy.

It's an extremely minor issue, of course. I only thought it worth mentioning as I would hate for someone to accidentally use that kind of information on a school paper or something. Nutgraph 02:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not minor - and a good catch. I've reworked the text to be more accurate. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No the Sun's name is Sol. It is a sun and our sun but its name is Sol. AlanD 10:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The Latin name is "Sol", but the proper name in English is the Sun. We don't use "our" sun as there is only one "Sun" - other stars are not suns. (This has been debated and resolved through extensive discussions over in the astronomy articles, and sourced from NASA, the IAU, and other official bodies.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. Thanks for making the necessary revision. Nutgraph 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Creet

I seriously doubt that the particular Toclafane they managed to capture was Creet, it simply had his memories. It states that they have a shared memory. Given that there are 6 billion of the things the odds against capturing a specific Toclafane are 6 billion to 1 against. The line about Martha beign horrified to discover that the Toclafane they captured is Creet should be edited.

Had it in there before, somehow got deleted. --Masem 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part that speculates about a "group mind", as we'd need a source for that. (If one exists in the show, my apologies, but I don't remember anyone saying that.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The captured Toc' definitely says something about all the Toclafane having shared memories, and that this is why they all know about Martha, the Doctor and Jack, and why that one is able to use Creet's quote in greeting Martha. The unsigned anon is correct. I'm on a public terminal, but I can provide a partial transcript when I get back to my own machine, if necessary. 12.22.250.4 19:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the info. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Similiarities to Fear Her

I noted on the artical in the continuity section that when the doctor lights the master's pyre with the burning stick, it bares similarity to when the doctor starts the olympics in fear her. there's a deliberate irony there i think, in fear he's joyous and celebratory, in lotl he's in a tragic mood. this keeps on being deleted, can somebody acknolodge my point or give reason for its deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.117.93 (talk • contribs)

The only thing in common is a burning torch. It isn't a reference, just a coincidence. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

not saying it's a reference, just an unspoken irony, it must be deliberate. take the point though that there's not enough evidence for an encyclopedia though... very difficult to verify

Musical number

It should probably be noted here that the musical number sung by the Master is I cant decide by Scissor Sisters, which is noted on the page for the band but not this one. There should be a closer path between two wikipedia pages than googling on lyrics ... particularly when the lyrics are not incidental and are actually sung by a major character. --82.226.191.237 23:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry, thought I was signed in ... that was me. --Nantonos 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It was in the article before, but someone decided that outside references are always trivia and therefore must not be included, and removed the entire heading. I have restored it, since the music one, at least, is significant, and the section is in line with other episodes' articles. -- Karen | Talk | contribs

Could it go under production notes? Something like that could usually be fit into another part of the article. Hewinsj 13:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I eventually had the same thought. Already taken care of. Thanks! -- Karen | Talk | contribs

Queen of Sheba

I added the observation that "And I'm the Queen of Sheba" is a common colloquial expression of skepticism. For corroboration, this usage is covered (in almost exactly the same words I used) in the Queen of Sheba article. --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the whole reference is based on a misquote. Docherty said that she didn't care whether Martha was the Queen of Sheba, not that Docherty was. Same general idea, but not very significant. Perhaps we should delete this item entirely, n'est-ce pas? -- Karen | Talk | contribs

The term is well enough known in the UK but many non-British Doctor Who fans (and even some younger British fans) may not be familiar with it. A note might help to indicate that this isn't some obscure time travel reference. (smile). --Tony Sidaway 10:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can wrote one that goes with what she actually said, it might be okay. As an American however, I can tell you I've heard it lots of times before. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

new suit

im almost certain the doctor had a new suit at the end of this episode. If he does would it be worth mentioning?86.136.215.22 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the same suit to me. Can anyone verify it's different? Mark H Wilkinson 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this significant? The TARDIS is supposed to have a wardrobe, we've seen it many times down the years, and (in reality) BBC Wales employs people to design, procure, repair and maintain clothes worn in productions. --Tony Sidaway 10:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He had his blue suit on, which was introduced this season but not new to this episode. -- MisterHand 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The TARDIS has been seriously altered by the master and subsequently shot to pieces by Jack. You think the repairs may have taken longer than it took the doctor to change his clothes? I'm more worried about the fact that heseems to have lived on the deck of an airship in a tent for a year in the same outfit.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry i thought it might be worth mentioning jst ignore this then

Christmas special and Kylie

The BBC has confirmed that Kylie Minogue will be in the Christmas Special, Voyage of the Damned [13]. --Tony Sidaway 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(The episode article has already been updated). --Tony Sidaway 10:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{{notaforum}}

In my opinion, the inclusion of this template is rude and unnecessary. The weekend is over. The wave of crap edits has happened. I haven't noticed an unusual amount of discussing the programme rather than discussing the article. Plus it duplicates what is already said in the talkheader template. And it's not true. (Well, I don't know about *you*, but *I* don't fancy wading through this talk page and editing out everything I consider to be speculation about the show rather than talk about writing the article, and then justifying that to the people whose comments I delete - the only editing I've ever seen done on a talkpage before is archiving it when it gets too long, and very occasionally people who have had nasty spats editing out the worst personal things they said). I think we should delete this template from this page. But I'll just check with you all first, since someone put it back in after I removed it last night. PaulHammond 12:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The template does seem heavy handed and a bit miserable. Even business-like conversation can veer off to discussion; discussion can lead to important decisions, and if everyone enjoys discussing the programme here, they are more likely to contribute to Wikipedia in general. This is not a forum, yes, but that's no reason to jump on everyone for being enthusiastic. As Paul says, it tends to settle down. Gwinva 12:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Reasonable and restrained discussion isn't a bad thing, though if it got out of hand we'd have to do something about it. --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo choice

You folks are starting to make me dizzy with all the photo reversions! Both photos are good ones, and if the Fair Use guidelines are sufficiently flexible to allow it I'm in favor of both (and not postage stamp sized). But if it has to be one of the other, the Doctor one is probably better to use, because a) it's a dramatic picture of the lead character at the turning point of the episode, and b) it's jarring to read of Toclafane "marching", even metaphorically, footless globe critters that they are! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea I started a photo war! Sorry about that, i only changed it to begin with because of personal preference but either pic is fine. (samwise_90 17:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Number 3

Recently someone put: "The number 3 seems to occour through out the episode: Sol 3, Track 3, The sign passed around to signal the escape attempt at 3'oclock, Milligan shot his gun three times to get the attention of the Toclafane and the countdown that The Master sets for the launch of the rockets is set for 3 minutes."

It was quickly removed, but I think they may be onto something. Should it be put back? Ophois 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You can not put it back. It is 'original research'. As soon as it turns out to be something 'official' you can put it back in with the propper footnote attached to it.--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 00:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Who Labeled Sol 3 as Closed?

This isnt mentioned as a lose end or anything on the article, so I was wondering if im just reading to much into it, but who would of labeled Sol 3 as closed? Is it meant to be implied it was the Master? But, interplanetary commerce/travel hadnt really been established. Just didnt know if this should be mentioned somewhere.

Aliens are zooming in and out all the time, as can be seen from the Torchwood stories. Presumably The Master put out the bogus message to reduce complications while he built his invasion fleet. Oh, and did I say? The Master is mad as a hatter. --Tony Sidaway 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Pride London

Being as it's a little difficult for Freema and John to have attended an event that didn't happen, I removed that line from Production and Publicity. If something else was intended there, please do replace it with something clearer. Shouriki 18:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The event took place; the screening didn't. I hope the minor change I've made makes that clear. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discontinuity

The Valiant returns to a time before the Toclafane appeared, but the President is still dead, killed by the Toclafane. I don't know how this should be addressed, since the normal result of posting something trivially obvious is that it gets deleted due to NPOV. So, I leave it to you. Proteus71 18:12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely that was merely before the rest of the Toclafane appeared? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus they were at the heart of the storm which meant the events on the Valiant were protected, they had occured. And as said the actions of the few Tolclafane that had come from the future on the TARDIS.AlanD 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)