Talk:Journey's End (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

Just throwing it out there, but does that Dalek line in the description have any sources? (203.164.128.138 (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

No, it doesn't, and I've deleted it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty certain Daleks are in it, it was a little hard to hide a small platoon of Daleks when filming this episode :p. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.83.239 (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% sure Daleks are in it. I'm not too sure though... ;) LuGiADude (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there were no Daleks! :D lol--91.105.115.124 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

no daleks? NO DALEKS? have you even watched it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.181.72 (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain, that the user made a joke, as the ":D" and the "lol" indicate. As the article is already written and does indeed cover the subject of Daleks, I don't think further discussion about whether they were in this episode is needed. So#Why ^{review me!} 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As we know title order now, can someone please edit this page so it allows preceeding link? thanks (code below - see, try to save people the effort)preceding = "Turn Left" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescent (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode 12 still has no title. — Edokter • Talk • 23:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But we know the episode exists, so couldn't the article exist with an unknown name, especially since we know it is the forst part of this episode NIKKKIN (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether the name not being announced has any significance!? All the others have been named after all. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

RTD stated "it would give too much away". Anyway, there's also a navbox at the bottom, so there's no pressing need to include a link in the infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ive seen photos of daleks, and you should add a thing noting that 'journeys end' was a gridlock working title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.188.180 (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't, because we can't find a reliable source for either of them. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How about all the clips of filming? LuGiADude (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we need it in writing. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why only written sources are acceptable. The cast of the confirmed season finale have been seen filming with Daleks, which in turn has been seen on the new mid-season trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.83.239 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care! Our policy is abundantly clear that only reliable sources count. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mid season trailer? Did I miss something? --Cameron (T|C) 13:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] Aired last night! —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If The Stolen Earth has Daleks, this episode will too. Can we add the category box? Digifiend (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Info box Sarah Jane isn't there, but if you edit the page, you see that she is, but she's not showing up? Why?--I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Only up to four companion parameters are supported. But do we have an official source yet? — Edokter • Talk • 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Elisabeth Sladen confirm it herself in an interview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.224.209 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

David Tennant himself confirmed that he'd have Rose, Martha, Donna, Sarah Jane and Captain Jack with him at the finale when interviewed on Jonathon Ross. They joked about it being like him being surrounded by the team on 'Loose Women'. 89.241.7.169 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully John Barrowman will confirm that when he appears on Jonathan Ross this week. Though he might be sworn to secrecy... Digifiend (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mat Irvine informed me that K9 is also in this episode, although the character is not currently listed in the infobox (and so neither is John Leeson). I didn't want to add it myself, as I know that the episode is a while from airing yet and most of you chaps on here are very protective over adding non-confirmed information. My knowing that Mat was in Cardiff to film the scenes a couple of weeks ago will be seen by most as either word-of-mouth or just a made up rumour, so I'll leave it to someone else's discretion to add it.... Howie ☎ 22:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable source for it, we can't put it in. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just have the info direct from the source through spoken word... so nothing in writing etc. Shame Howie ☎ 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like no K9 - of the SJA cast, the trailer only shows Sarah and Luke. Digifiend (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

K9 appeared briefly... Dsalt (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What has the trailer got to do with whether a character is in the episode or not? As it happens I was correct and K9 did appear. Howie ☎ 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but we had no way of knowing that at the time, so people shouldn't have assumed it would happen, just because Sarah Jane appeared. Mat Irvine couldn't be cited as it was word of mouth, and K9 could've been on set for a SJA episode. Moot now anyway. Digifiend (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen photo's from the filming of this containing daleks, sarah Jane captian Jack Rose and Martha!Can I write this in the article please.

JordanAshley (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not unless you can cite a reliable source; sorry. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the new trailer doesn't show Martha, Jack or Sarah! It did reveal Davros (shown emerging from a corridor) and multiple Daleks though. Digifiend (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As we're on the subject of "elements which cannot be confirmed", what confirmation is there for the episode being set in WW I, "also"?

This doesn't seem to fit too well with the named characters of this episode.

I may be mistaken, but I don't recall an involvement worth mentioning of troops with generals who have Spanish names - like the character of Michael Brandon, "General Sanchez" - in WW I; especially when combined with the Dempsie-character of "Klien" [in case that one were supposed to be a German name, the spelling would rather be "Klein" - the German word meaning "Little" -, anyway...].

There might be some similarities to the play "Journey's End" indeed, who knows (after all, there might be hundreds of reasons to call the final episode of a series "A Journey's End", without any relation to a play), but I really doubt that they include its setting in WW I... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.78.193 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not Spain, but Portugal was on the Allied side during WW1. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a relable source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7320000/newsid_7325700/7325783.stm Apparently we will see Rose, Martha, Donna, Sarah Jane, Jack...the list may go on! Mommytorres

Unfortunately, it doesn't source them to this episode. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it; what precisely is sourced in the part cited ("Baptism of fire and ice")? Who is confirmed? Are they all listed? Is anyone listed who oughtn't to be? Worth checking!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)I have the magizine and I think t's talking about planet of the ood(Icey planet) and fires of pompeii(fire)JordanAshley (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay dont delete this staight away, theres a very reliable sourse to this and i have provide the link, the cybermen were in the alternate universce that rose was traped in it is very likely for them to come back, the darleks were in series 3 Russel T Davis does not have the same monstors coming back every year also there is photos of the BBC filming with David Tenent (The Doctor), Billy Pipper (Rose) and Cybermen Costumes, A spokesman for BBC Wales confirmed that Doctor Who was being filmed at St Woolos Cemetery Were the photographs were taken.greeny087 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2008 (GMT)References: http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2188951.mostviewed.cybermen_invade_newport.phpCite error: Invalid parameter: use the {{reflist}} template with the group parameter (see the help page).

And how is this relevant to this particular article? --FF 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As there is no other episode that this could fit into on series 4, and its very likely that the last episode wil be either a 2 or 3 parter. g087 14:12, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

Unless it's a christmas special or something else, as the article itself points out. All we know is they filmed cybermen, that's all this article says. That's no enough to link it to this episode. You yourself said it could be a 3 parter, so it could just as easily be either of the two previous episodes. It's just speculation for the moment. Ged UK (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of the cybermen during gilming for the christmas special, there in thaty episode not this one.

86.160.63.137 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cybermen are for the Christmas special not series 4, series 4 has finished filming.--Wiggs (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pics of the doc and cybermen are popping up all over the place now. Does anyone know when we are going to create the 2008 xmas special page? --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably at the end of series 4, when the title will be revealed. — Edokter • Talk • 18:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what it has to wait that long, the Bond films usually start with something like Bond 22 and then change the name when it's published. Ged UK (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, next to the title, there wouldn't be any other usefull information from reliable sources that we could put in. Voyage of the Damned didn't start getting filled until way past July. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a better reason! Though we have already got info on Cybermen, some stuff on filming, we know a little about who's in it (at least DT). I'm not fussed either way, just thought i'd mention it :) Ged UK (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are also companion rumours...but I'll leave it to you guys. Even though...it has about as much info as some of the series four articles. One could argue that they neednt have been created until nearer the time. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is a fantastic example of why you shouldn't just add things because "theres a very reliable sourse [sic] to this". -- Chuq (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Photos have surfaced suggesting that Davros makes a return. Type 40 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos too now? Let's have a link! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was something I saw on YouTube about a month ago - video taken by a fan at a location shooting on the streets of Cardiff that had the Doctor confronted by Daleks outside the TARDIS, falling, and Rose and Sarah Jane rushing to him; also of Rose carrying a big gun. One of the shots had the lower half of a Dalek case that looked like Davros' "wheelchair" but with no one in it - suggesting a partly CGI Davros or at least a Davros prop without the actor present. Type 40 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, or it could be a headless Dalek. This is the best I can find right now though I think I saw another one that was clearer. [2] Type 40 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here it is [3]. So your guess is as good as mine, in the first two shots is that Davros' lower half? Type 40 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Those were simply Dalkes with their tops removed, but the mid seciotn still there... and Davros did not have a mid section. Seriously folks... true or not, we need irrefutable, solid sourced evidence before we can even mention Davros in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you search for Doctor Who Series 4 and either finale or davros you will find some interesting video about the finale. Now as far as a reliable source... http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7320000/newsid_7325700/7325783.stm Davros WILL be in the finale! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.80.173 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. The article doesn't mention Davros or specific episode(s), so it's not reliable enough!!!!lol —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And interpreting the "villain that had the bottom half of a Dalek, while its top half looked like it could be human" to be Davros is OR! --Cameron (T|C) 10:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned in today's Sun newspaper - it is indeed Davros. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article1209142.ece Digifiend (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sun is a long way from a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this Daily Mirror article proves your point. Having a sonic screwdriver doesn't make one a Time Lady! Think of Partners in Crime... http://www.mirror.co.uk/tvandfilm/tvland/ Digifiend (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough, River Song is a (future) companion, not a Time Lady. Now I see why tabloid newspapers aren't trusted. Digifiend (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The 17th June 2008 release of the Radio Times (with the Doctor, Rose, Martha and Donna on the front cover) says on the back page (advertising the next issue) that the Daleks *and Davros* are returning for the finale... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Which means The Sun was reliable in this case. Unlike the Daily Mirror, who got River Song's identity wrong the same week. Digifiend (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep track of foreshadowing that has occurred thus far? There was a reference in one episode this year about the Doctor's journey facing an end, wasn't there? Type 40 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that one Ood guy said that...75.165.108.121 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ood said his "song" was coming to an end. Most likely in reference to River Song from the library episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.92.245 (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane and Jack I can understand, but it has been absolutely confirmed numerous times that Rose is in the last three episodes of the series, and Martha is in the last two. There is no doubt about this, and it is only right they are added to the infobox as companions. U-Mos (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember that this is an encyclopaedia where writing about events after the fact is okay and speed is not a priority. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand that, but the length of time it has been common knowledge for really makes "speed" out of the question here. Rose, I recall, was announced as being in the last three episodes in the same press release/interview that announced that Donna would be in all 13. I'm sure someone would know where to dig to find that. And Freema Agyeman gave an interview a few months back where she confirmed her epsiodes to be 4, 5, 6, 12 and 13. This interview, to be precise. U-Mos (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources confirming Jack, Sarah Jane, Rose and Martha, yes.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rose - trailer footage is indisputable proof. Martha - quote from actress, source citation needed. Sarah and Jack are unproven. What are your sources? Digifiend (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Rose footage merely says that she'll appear in at least one of the six remaining episodes, and the 83% uncertainty isn't satisfactory! I'm sure she'll be in the finale but a specific source connecting her to this episode is required. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't post this on the main page and probably rightly so. I just thought I'd point out that this website[4] says that Richard Dawkins will be making his appearance in this episode ("guest starring"). The website itself doesn't sight sources though and the only real genuine source is Russell's interview in the Independent, which doesn't mention which episode it will be. This website [5] takes the best bit about Dawkins out of the Independent interview. It seems Dawkins is going to be playing himself/making a cameo. Some sources have him as a "guest star" and I misread the above website at first, making me think he was going to have an acting part. That made me entertain the type of fantasy that's never going to happen: Dawkins as Davros! Wouldn't that be brilliant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.61.74 (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebs as themselves is usually in episode 12. Digifiend (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Rose is 100% appearing in the last three episodes (Even if just by name in 'Turn Left') And I would also like to point out that it has been confirmed in various places that Rose, Jack + co, Jackie, Mickey, Martha, Donna, Jenny and Sarah-Jane are all in the last episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totally.doctor.who (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Where!?! Billie Piper gave an interview in Doctor Who Magazine (revealing Midnight and Turn Left plot details) and Freema Agyeman has been quoted as saying she's in episodes 12 and 13. But I don't see any mention of Jenny anywhere, and Torchwood hasn't been mentioned either, as far as we know, it's just Jack. Sarah Jane appears in all the same sources as Captain Jack, not linking to any specific episode. Strange header too. Is that your name or something? Digifiend (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys. It took me all of five minutes to find the SFX source that confirms that Sarah Jane and Jack are in the season finale. In a source from January. Let's try to do a little work before we blindly start reverting things that are in all probability true, OK? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If no source is provided then the information is removed. It's policy = )...--Cameron (T|C) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy does not mandate removal - we have a lovely template at Template:cn that can also be used for information that one thinks is verifiable but is not yet verified. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That, plus the SFX source wasn't any good, it didn't mention specific episodes. —TreasuryTag—t | c 14:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"The climactic episode" pretty obviously refers to the finale. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources stating so? Otherwise that assumption constitutes WP:OR. Surely the climatic episode could be any episode? Who's to say it isn't the second last episode with the last episode being to cool everything down again? = ) --Cameron (T|C) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Such Cartesian doubt does not seem helpful. Absent some reason to believe that the fourth season of Doctor Who is going to abandon the pattern set by the first three seasons and by the arc of television series in the last decade or so, the climactic story is clearly going to be the finale. There is nothing to be gained by trying to read sources with the maximum possible skepticism. It could also be a clever and deliberate misinformation campaign on the part of the BBC to distract us from the real return, which will be a reunion of all living Doctors. However, in practice, we ought look at the clear and intended meaning - a reasonable reader will take "the climactic story" to mean what we do here - the final story in the season. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Phil (if the latest comment is you...), if there wasn't an exciting climax in every episode then the ratings wouldn't be as good :-) Seriously, there are BLP issues, and it won't matter if we wait a couple of weeks for the official press-release. —TreasuryTag—t | c 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP does not require radical skepticism on our part, however. It requires good faith and sensible readings of sources. A sensible reading of the SFX source says that they will appear in the final episode. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also WP:NOCOMMON... I say we wait, either for a new consensus to develop here, or for the press-release. —TreasuryTag—t | c 06:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NOCOMMON is an essay, and a bloody stupid one at that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As is WP:COMMON. As I said above, I say we wait, either for a new consensus to develop here, overriding the existing one (that says "climactic does not mean finale necessarily), or for the press-release. Neither will kill us. Could I also ask that you please stop simply revert-warring (it's helping no-one and setting a bad example to other users!), and accept the BRD cycle - we're now at the discussion stage. Cameron and I represent a consensus opposed to your POV. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in BLP, V, or NOR, however, does it say we must apply standards of interpretation that are wildly outside what a normal reader would apply. As for your "new consensus here" approach, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that it is possible to, through numeric strength, vote away the fact that sources say things. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, there is no consensus here. Also, you would do well to heed your own request (i.e., you should stop reverting too). Matthew (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both Cameron and I felt that your interpretation of the source ("climactic" meant "finale") was inappropriate; until a further consensus is generated then the numerical one must apply, unfortunately. As I said twice above (and you seem to have avoided commenting on), we could always wait for the press release, which will only be in a few short weeks and certainly won't kill anyone! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been solved by the addition of a source that is not open to interpretation. Matthew (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw that only after editing the talkpage here. Thanks for digging that up! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Question! um i know that jack harkness and sarah jane smith have been confermed, but shouldnt they be in the companion list? not in the other list. they are listed as official companions afterall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovingnews1989 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the infobox only allows 4 names. Digifiend (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That, plus they're not necessarily companions in this episode. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For all we know, they could just be making cameo appearances (like Rose did thus far). DonQuixote (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool thanks. Lovingnews1989 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some TV listings mags (specifically Radio Times and Total TV Guide) have Martha Jones on the cover. Total TV Guide has Sarah Jane on the cover as well. Funny thing is, the magazines refer to Turn Left, which these two aren't even expected in (except maybe the next episode teaser). Digifiend (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The external link to the BBC website doesn't work, there are only pages of already broadcast episodes on the BBC website. should I remove it? General Staal (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The link will work automatically as soon as the page at the BBC is up. — Edokter • Talk • 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It currently autoforwards to the most recent episode, so at the moment it's Silence, but last week it linked to Unicorn. Thus, when it gets to Journey's End, the link will stick, and be correct. Digifiend (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult Times magazine's TV listings say that Ianto Jones and Gwen Cooper from Torchwood are in episode 12 (episode 13 is after the next issue comes out, but presumably CT has them down for that episode too). Can someone confirm this or prove them wrong? Digifiend (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my sources (!) said the same thing, and also {spoiler link}, but I'm not sure how reliable the magazine is. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your link should've pointed to {link removed - spoiler}. If Luke doesn't appear, I expect he'll still be mentioned. Digifiend (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But we digress... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, the second half of my previous comment now makes no sense with the spoiler removed... Digifiend (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So Radio Times has finally confirmed it. All three members of Torchwood Three will appear. Did the same article confirm the Stolen Earth cast? 212.50.191.46 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to log in. That was me. Digifiend (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the name of episode 12! But i'm not puting it down because it is top secret. Plus I have a reliable sourse. Can I make a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.46.55 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you make a page if you're refusing to tell us the name? Your source must be verifiable by the public, from a book, a magazine or an online publication, so a secret source isn't any good - anyway, we'll know the title this time next week (the Thursday press-release should give it) so we can wait 'til then. My bet is "{spoiler link - hover to see!}. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's simple really: if you do have a reliable source, make the page. If you don't, don't. If I'm quite honest I imagine you don't. U-Mos (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, IPs can't actually make new pages, but since - as you say - they don't have a verifiable reliable source (if, indeed, they even have a reliable source), the issue doesn't arise. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If it proves correct, that red link will soon turn blue. That name makes sense if you think of certain quotes from some of the prior episodes... Digifiend (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To the original poster in this topic. You don't have to ask permission to do anything on Wikipedia. That's the point. Although this page seems to have a draconian babysitter. I suggest you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN 71.193.243.8 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The spoiler link is moot, the title you suggested is mentioned on the Doctor Who series 4 talk page. Digifiend (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done TreasuryTag, looks like you got the title right! Digifiend (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently added a description citing a page that confirms an air date of July 5, but at least one reference in the article to the air date only gives the year 2008. Could a registered user please update the article? 90.210.193.126 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

July 5 would be 7 days after The Stolen Earth. But how do we know sport won't push it out - I'm thinking Wimbledon tennis. Digifiend (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the beep have confirmed yet. --Cameron (T|C) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced to the BBC Press Office now. — Edokter • Talk • 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

These characters are sourced to this week's Radio Times. I have reason to doubt this is true, so could someone who owns the magazine please confirm/deny it? U-Mos (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea, but it has been added to the Ianto article. --Cameron (T|C) 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Radio Times is published by BBC Worldwide, so if they mention it, it's true. I'm the one who initially added it to Ianto and Gwen's articles (although Zythe has since rephrased it). Digifiend (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but I am not sure if the Radio Times actually says that Gwen and Ianto are in it. That's what I would like to be confirmed. U-Mos (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moot now, the next time teaser confirmed them, and Luke Smith as well. Digifiend (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that this story is the first crossover between Sarah Jane Adventures, Torchwood and Doctor Who, or would that be banned as original research? Jack on his own last year doesn't count as a crossover, as he originated in Doctor Who series 1. Digifiend (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane also originated from Doctor Who. — Edokter • Talk • 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is notable (especially as I beleive RTD once stated there would be no crossovers other than Jack? This would have to be sourced if mentioned, obvs). Also, both Eve Myles and Shobu Kapoor are the first people other than Jimmy Vee and voice actors to play more than one role within the new series. U-Mos (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what am I on about? Just Myles, obviously. But it's Stolen Earth that crosses over now anyway. U-Mos (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Chipo Chung who played Chantho last year played the fortune teller in Turn Left. So Eve isn't the only one to play more than one character. 86.156.40.244 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, what I wrote up there is complete rubbish. U-Mos (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And Freema Agyeman first played Adeola in Army of Ghosts and then came back to play her cousing Martha. I'll stop now :) 86.167.194.227 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It IS going to be some sort of crossover. The trailer for "The Stolen Earth" shows the hub from Torchwood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.88.229 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That was already mentioned in the article. Locations and cast. Digifiend (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't they on the list, although they are, according to the rest of wikipedia, in the episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06018 (talk • contribs)

Please be patient. We'll have it all sorted out by the time the episode airs. DonQuixote (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Trailer only confirmed Luke. If Maria is absent, blame real life exams, she's 16. (Saying that though, I think SJA has started filming)/. Digifiend (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While a 60-minute length (6.40 - 7.40) is cited, this BBC page contradicts it. I think this latter source is considerably more reliable. However, since that opinion may be controversial, perhaps the article should for now accept neither figure - although I think the 45-minute (7 - 7.45 option) should be included if said controversy does not exist.90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Last year's finale was 50 minutes. I'd wait until broadcast. Digifiend (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But in Lizo's Review of THe Stolen Earth, he states that next week's episode (Journey's End) is an hour long magicman92 (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's BBC. Which means it's as reliable as it gets, so go with 60 minutes. Digifiend (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

THEY'RE ALL BBC! Sorry for shouting. I just find it frustrating that the BBC is being so inconsistent. Apparently the latest DWM is now making it even more confusing by saying it's 65 minutes. (Are they also BBC trustworthy?) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DWM is Panini, not BBC. Second-hand info. BBC takes precedence, then DWM, then other sources. Digifiend (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Radio Times website is saying 65 minutes. I assume they know. Jamrifis (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This confirms a 65 minute runtime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.252.72 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to seem crazy, but if we have different sources, which are equally reliable, contradicting each other, can't we just say so in the article? Like "60 minutes^[1] / 65 minutes^[2] / etc."? --SoWhy ^Talk 20:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1h3m3s. Dsalt (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Gethin Jones of Blue Peter is inside one of the Dalek casings in this episode (mentioned on Blue Peter 24/6/2008). He was also inside a Cyberman suit in series 2.Digifiend (talk) 09:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Checked other pages - it is already mentioned on the Gethin Jones article (I had to add the bit about it being a Dalek myself though). Digifiend (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is Gethin Jones, and what have those nasty daleks done to John Noaks and Shep? --Jenny 02:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by your John Noakes reference you know full well that Gethin's an ex-Blue Peter presenter (still current when JE was filmed). He left two weeks ago. Digifiend (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying we can't add anything in the cast until we know for sure he's regarated? (Because it would be OR or something like that)

It had to get out of the way. 86.135.97.226 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, we have only the official press release to go on, which lists Mr Tennant as being the Doctor. What actually happens according to my sources is here [SPOILERS, if you're interested. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The David Tennant is signed for a fifth series so he can't possibly regenerate into a 11th Doctor. Jammy (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple, Tennant plays the Tenth and Eleventh Doctor. Funny chap that Russell T Davies. Still, jokes aside, wait for some confirmation. Alientraveller (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC could have confirmed it just to make us believe there would be no serious shockers at the end of this series, however, considering there is nothing about (especially on DW spoiler sites) a new doctor, presume that there will either be a stand-in for a while or the regeneration botches.(86.164.8.137 (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Well, we are no forum here, so let's not speculate. We'll know in a week's time or maybe sooner, IF you can provide a reliable source. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep the Doctor credit blank until we know otherwise. E-flah (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Until the episode is broadcast, the most authoritative source we have is the BBC Press Office (followed by the BBC Doctor Who pages). The Press Office says he is the Doctor, so we should leave him as the Doctor until such a time as something more authoritative is released or the programme is broadcast. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC listings for Journey's End shows David Tennant as The Doctor http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/programme.shtml?day=saturday&service_id=4223&filename=20080705/20080705_1840_4223_10427_65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.178.154 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they have him listed as the Doctor because they're going to show the start of his regeneration again, before morphing into the new Doctor within about two minutes of the start. – PeeJay 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But has anyone thought that he may not regenerate at all and its his human side that has been hit (The Eighth Doctor says this in the 1996 Doctor Who film that he is half human on his mother's side). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vampanese1234 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 June 2008

He meant "side" as in his mother's genetic line, not a physical side. It's not possible for him to be hit only on the human side of him. Lrn2Genetics. Also, the events of the movie involving the 8th doctor are rather apocryphal at best, ESPECIALLY the half-human bit. That's why the Daleks in "The Parting of the Ways" screamed "BLASPHEMY" when Rose said they were half-human - it was a less than subtle dig at the movie. 124.148.92.245 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's all to do with the severd hand, notice the un-subtle close up of it at the start of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevey V2 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, we are NOT a forum here, take your speculations to a fan site and come back, if you have some sources for anything you are just guessing at at the moment. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We do know the regen will fail, because of the pictures mentioned in the Cybermen discussion above. Digifiend (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't. We are guessing from the little information in there. But we do not know it for sure and thus it would be speculation to include. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But why would Tennant be on set with Cybermen if he's not in the episode - which is assumed to be the Christmas special. Digifiend (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't know. As you say, "assumed to be...", i.e. it's speculation and your own conclusion. We cannot add it to the article unless we have a clear source that states "no regeneration" (because even if it's the xmas special, it could be set before this episode). --SoWhy ^Talk 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to just be patient and wait till the episode airs. After that it'll be completely out in the open (hopefully) and all this discussion will become moot. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if all this was a huge PR move to prevent what happened in Series 1 with Eccleston...and I also wouldn't be surprised if the cliffhanger to "Stolen Earth" wasn't some sort of red herring to generate all this discussion. Hmmmm...now I wish it were Saturday already.... DonQuixote (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On the BBC website on Stolen Earth there is a trailer which displays the Tenth Doctor which I think is his state after regeneration. Does this need to be mentioned on the page or is it not needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.40.98 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it any different to the events at the end of The Stolen Earth? For all I can see, it's revealing more about Davros' plan but the regeneration part is the same as with TSE. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't from the new episode - it's reused from "Stolen Earth", showing us the start of regen. He is lying down looking at his hand, and whilst regenerating/after regeneration he is standing up - from Eccleston to Tennant he was standing up, and the Master's regen was the same. Dave (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that that trailer content isn't actually available for viewing in the States just yet, so it isn't really verifiable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not? There are pleanty of UK-based Wikipedians, and any of them can verify it. _TalkIslander 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does not mean that everyone must be able to verify it. Islander is correct. Also, the trailer is on YouTube multiple times and can be viewed there. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that only one of them is uploaded by the BBC, and that is again locked to the UK (not that that's a problem). The rest are copyvios. _TalkIslander 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my point exactly. As we can't list copyvios as sources, we have to list what is official - even if you need to ask a UK-based editor to verify it. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Is there someone who can verify the content. please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks around for someone* Hmm, OK, how's about me? :P. I can verify that fact you keep removing, re. the Doctor's Army. Anything else?_TalkIslander 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a nice choco biscuit? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredibly arrogant. Since when does something have to be available in the US to make it Wikipediable? Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Arcayne: please take note of this for the future. 91.108.49.61 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, what was incredibly arrogant? Asking for a choco biscuit? I thought to be a bit witty, myself. When a source isn;t immediately verifiable, it is not untoward to ask for confirmation. When I received it, you might note that I relented. Maybe you could find a tiny little place in your heart to begin exercising a wee bit of good faith for yours truly. Treating me like the enemy simply because I ask for more accreditation for our information isn't going to improve the article or your ability to interact with me. Be nice, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Without the BBC credit rolls, which we haven't seen as of yet, there isn't any basis for listing the different actors as companions as of yet. With that in mind, I've rewritten the infobox to reflect that the guest stars are just that, guests. When we have citation as to them being companions for the purpose of this episode, then we can note them as such. Not before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a two-parter (sorry, three-parter), so it should be the same as The Stolen Earth. So as much as I hate this needless and meaningless "additional stars" field, that's what it should be right now. U-Mos (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But haven't we already determined that we follow the BBC credit rolls? Everyone argued vociferously that following the credit rolls exclusively outweighed the alternative of listing them alphabetically. This is a non-starter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We absolutely follow the credits, and are at the moment (the "credits" being the online version sourced in the infobox before broadcast). I don't see the issue. U-Mos (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, so wy are we listing folk as guest stars/also starring/companion? They are not listed that way in the BBC credit rolls, and we don't get it both ways. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't list them as anything. Common sense dictates we should use the information of other sources to clarify roles as far as possible, including the fact that this episode is directly linked to The Stolen Earth and so companion/additional star/guest star in TSE means they will have the same role in this. U-Mos (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We have already determined that we follow the BBC credits for the cast. If we are going to use that non-specific source, please feel free to add Captain Jack and his crew and Sarah Jane as companions in all' of the articles where their characters appear since, by your reasoning, we have to. Sorry, this is a rather silly argument to be having. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the previous episode, Dalek Caan predicted that "the Doctor's most faithful companion" will face "everlasting death". Should a list of possible characters to die be added to the article? I can think of three:

• Rose Tyler: Was a permanent companion for two of the new series four season.
• Sarah Jane Smith: As she is the only companion from the old series to appear in the new series, this makes her a possibility.
• Captain Jack Harkness: Based on Caan's use of the phrase "everlasting death", as Jack is immortal.

(Najhoant (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

No. Because all of that is speculation. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 10:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One, it's just a load of speculation. Two, only one person on that list could possibly die and that is Rose Tyler considering both Sarah Jane Smith and Captain Jack both have spin off TV shows that are set to be filmed. Plus you forgot to add Donna Noble to the list. Jammy (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SoWhy and Jammy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to add the Tardis to that list .Garda40 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF? Jammy's comment is a rephrased version of something I said yesterday, and why was my comment deleted? By the way Jammy, SJA is already filming, according to Doctor Who Magazine. Digifiend (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just checked, Jammy rephrased my comment and took the credit! I checked the discussion page history. Thief! Digifiend (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! God damn him for voicing an opinion that happened to agree with yours in similar wording! How dare he violate the copyright you have over YOUR STATEMENT. You better take him to court and get like a million dollars. 124.148.124.11 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if it wasn't for the "don't edit the archive" rule, I would have restored Jammy's comment to mine. Digifiend (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. It was archived incorrectly. Archiving occurs when a conversation is actually done or has gone for a certain number of days without comment. It does not occur when one person wants it to be done. If you see that in the future, please feel free to remove it yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I did what? All I did was add a comment. Jammy (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He was misleading Davros anyway. the real prophecy wasa the death of the Daleks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.88.229 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you please decide on your changes and make little grammatical edits in one big update. Your tiny little repeated edits are making it hard for anyone to get an edit in edgeways, and you're cluttering up the history page. Thanks. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, rather than fighting with edits, come here to resolve debates. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be a better idea to leave a discrete note on the user's talk page. --Cameron* 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, and here's a crazy idea, how about people take the time to make grammatically-correct edits in the first place, then people don't have to go around fixing their mistakes in a way that obviously annoys you guys so damn much? --82.6.90.185 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Like none of you have ever made mistakes. Perhaps if people went here to discuss my changes instead of reverting them I wouldn't be in such a hurry to correct myself and thus also make grammatical errors.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise for not contacting you on your talk page, but having attempted to get in touch with you in the past I decided this was the only way to keep the article sane in the hours after broadcast. And edit summaries are still not the place to debate why something should or should not be in the article. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an edits by you to my talkpage.... however I apologize for not checking the discussion board.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You could claim that "Voyage of the Damned" was not the title seeing as it didn't explicitly state "VOYAGE OF THE DAMNED IS THE TITLE FOR THE NEXT EPISODE" it just said "Voyage of the Damned". Same for "Return of the Cybermen", yet we instantly put "Voyage of the Damned" as the 'following' and WP:OSE is rubbish lalala I've ended my rant LuGiADude (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote in "Last of the Time Lords" was "Doctor Who will return at christmas in VOYAGE OF THE DAMNED". That certainly was clear enough. — Edokter • Talk • 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Return of the Cybermen" could mean that simply Cybermen are returning, not that the episode is called that. With VOTD, you don't have that ambiguity. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I never took it to mean the tile is "Return of the Cybermen". Just that... the Cybermen are returning. U-Mos (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Return of the Cybermen is just a working title until they can think of something better. Well thats my view anyway... All Grown Up! Defender 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page called "Doctor Who: Christmas Special 2008" for putting in what we know about it for the time being? E-flah (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with E-flah, like other examples (e.g. Bond 22) we should have a temporary article until the name is disclosed and then move it to the final name. I created one at Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't really know anything. One: cybermen. Two: David Morrissey. That's pretty much it. No article yet, I don't think. U-Mos (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptre and Edokter, there's no reason to think that the title is "Return of the Cybermen". As it happens, I believe it is {spoiler link - hover to see}... remember, you heard it here first ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article talk page is not the place for posting potential spoilers. And no, I didn't hear that here first - that rumour has been doing the rounds for a while. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat you to it anyway, and Sylvester McCoy's website can't be trusted. Digifiend (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I beleve that the next epissode is called ggghosts in the machiness . I have a ssorsse. www.ssylvesstermccoy.com/newdoctorwho/ .

ssorry about the dobblingggss up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.0.209 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That source is all speculation; it even has notes on the 6th series, which hasn't even been written yet. — Edokter • Talk • 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:( LuGiADude (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the same site that told us episode 12 was War on Skaro 86.154.185.86 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Sarah Jane's warp pendant nuclear bomb thing appear in a previous episode of (old) DW or one of those SJA episodes that I didn't bother watching? I think she said she had received it as a gift from a soothsayer. MultipleTom (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It might have been from the same soothsayer, but it wasn't the same pendant. That one's function was to allow people to remember those close to them despite them being wiped from a timeline due to a changing of history, and it wasn't a pendant, more like some kind of rubik's cube kind of thing but diagonal instead of square. Homoaffectional (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted in a talk page, and am prolly doing it wrong. But I wanted to add that Sarah Jane said she got the pendant from a Verron Soothsayer. Presumably it is the same Veroon Soothsayer who gave her a puzzle box in "Sarah Jane Adventures: Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane?" and told her to "Remember". Interestingly, the Verron Soothsayer turned out to be the Trickster. The beetle on Donnas back belongs to the Trickster's brigade. 76.107.39.123 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Trickster wasn't the soothsayer... Ophois (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The soothsayer foresaw the Trickster's plan, and so gave that to Sarah Jane so someone she trusts (Maria) would be protected.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is he played by Tennant or somebody else?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's David Tennant. U-Mos (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as mentioned in the Confidential it's someone else for long shots but the rest of the time it's David Tennant .Garda40 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't apreciate the sarcasm... plane tickets to England are expensive. I will be there for Guy Fawks night though.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not David, it's another actor (at least, only in scenes where both doctors are on-screen at the same time!) --91.105.115.124 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, it's David then also. Only when they shot the back of one Doctor, or the shoulder of one at the same time as the other did they use another guy, who was named in Confidential as Collin. And Dr who1975, let's be careful to stay civil. U-Mos was only referencing WP:DUCK. _TalkIslander 20:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should have something about the use of two Doctors, and fortunately Doctor Who Confidential gives a fair amount of information about how this was done, starting at about 14'30" on the BBC iPlayer version currently available online in the UK (I'm taking my timings from the Virgin cable version; the BBC website version may be slightly different). The sequence starts when Davies says "This is so busy and so mental and so epic and universal in scale that of of course you need two Doctors to solve it." Phil Collinson, Graeme Harper, and David Tennant discuss the use of the double, a musician called Colum (it's an Irish man's name) who is a very good physical match for Tennant. Collinson explains that while with an unlimited budget they'd the'd use Tenant in every shot, "we only have a certain number of effects shots where you can see the two Doctors together, so we have to pick those carefully."

Harper is then shown directing a scene in which both Colum and Tennant are shown around the console. Harper explains that in "two or three wide shots" they were able to use Colum and Tennant together.

Tennant tries to explain the procedure for making an effects shot involving Tennant as both Doctors. The camera is locked in place while Tennant goes off and changes clothing, with Colum holding his place. A shot is made for reference with Colum, then another shot is made without Colum. Tennant dissolves into incoherence at this point, but the process described is a well known technique enabling the shots to be merged at the editing stage. --Jenny 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

His name is Colum Regan. He is credited in Voyage of the Damned as a stand-in for David. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant job. Really. The article is (semi)protected when it is most likely to receive attention and improvements. "extending to end of episode on that day and prevent further speculation ... (expires 18:45, 6 July 2008)" - somewhat out on the timing there. Come on, get back to "that anyone can edit" on something as simple as this. 91.108.49.61 (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I have requested unprotection. Thanks for bringing it to attention. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad wolf in norwegian would be slem not dårlig. Dårlig means something of inferior quality, while slem means bad, as in evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.14.211.93 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Exterminerien isn't a German word either. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Still funny, though. German Daleks. Ha! — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The words had to be German-sounding but recognisable to English speakers. Whatever word might be used by a native German speaker instead of "exterminieren" probably would not work in the context of a drama for English speakers to watch. At least they didn't talk like the gestapo men in Allo Allo. --Jenny 04:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the old German sync they said "Vernichten" (destroy), Exterminieren is reasonable, though. After all, exterminate was not really an English word outside of DW before it was used by the Daleks as far as I can tell. As for the wolf, I don't see why bad should be bad in the meaning of evil - although admittedly, it's a stupid name for a place. 83.189.121.36 (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "exterminate" was around lonh before the Who universe came into existence - the Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition "to destroy utterly" and dates it from 1649. (There are other meanings, but they are all obsolete.) This is clearly the meaning that the Daleks have for the word.

As for the German, my (small) bilingual German dictionary has "ausrotten" for "exterminate", but using that would have just been confusing and distracting. Of course they had to use something that would have been understandable to anyone, whether or not they know German. "Exterminieren" is sham German - search for it on Google and pretty much all hits are about Doctor Who. It's interesting too that the conversation in German between Martha and the German woman is not subtitled, so there we are left to draw our understanding of the scene from other cues.

And Dårlig Ulv Stranden doesn't mean "Bad Wolf Bay" and isn't pronounced "Dalek ..." either (see http://iaith.tapetrade.net/doctorwho/reviews/9v-review.html). The letter å is pronounced like "aw" in "paw". Ah well. Artistic licence. — Paul G (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it can be used in German, being a "Lehnwort" from English, but it isn't. In the German Doctor Who synchronization, the word "eliminieren" is used, i.e. "to eliminate". --SoWhy ^Talk 10:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a native speaker I can confirm that the word "Exterminieren" is not existing in German, no native speaker would ever use this word.. But I assume they wanted a word that the English speaking audience recognizes and... well, can't the Daleks make a translation error? ;-) .

The dialogue between Martha and that German woman is also not done very well, for you can clearly hear that the actor playing that German woman is not a native speaker too, which is very funny because she "recognizes" that Martha is speaking a London accent. The German dialogue is this:

"Here is nobody, whatever you want, go away. Leave me alone."

"My name is Martha Jones. I'm coming from UNIT, Agent 56671, medical unit."

"They said, you were coming... the accent, that is London, isn't it..."

Then the dialogue continues in English. Later when aiming the gun at Martha, she again talks German, saying: "You are the nightmare not the others, you are. I should kill you. Right now at best" and after Martha says "Then do it", the woman says: "Martha, to Hell with you." 84.167.166.156 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1964 the memory of the Second World War was still so strong that as little children in the early sixties we would play war games in which the baddies were always Nazis. Thus the original daleks of that year were, in effect, Nazi stormtroopers in metal skirts, and I suspect the use of the word "exterminate", which in British English is also used in connection with the Holocaust, was related to that conception of the daleks as genocidal warriors driven by hatred. --Jenny 11:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to provide standard citations for all the flashbacks and references using episode citations. This has long been standard practice on Doctor Who articles. One only has to look at "The Stolen Earth" to see this in practice. Another example of articles where this happens is the "Doomsday" article. However, these citations keep being removed as "unnecessary" and/or too plentiful. Just because they are numerous, that does not make them less valid and surely more references strengthens the article? To avoid an edit war, I will not be editing this article further, but would like there to be wider discussion as to wether these references should be included or not. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, your exhaustive list of refs is pointless because they're not referencing anything. You give no context or a list of clips by which to go by. The refs have nothing to do with the sentence. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that your problem with it then? That I removed the list of episodes they are from? I only did that because I'd seen that had been done for one of my passages on "The Stolen Earth" article. I was following suit. Look through the edit history and you'll see my original version was a full paragraph listing the clips in the order they were shown with the start of the sentence providing context for them. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have removed the list, too, as such a thing would be much too trivial. When I look at the stolen Earth, I see episode refs being used as they're supposed to be used, reinforcing a specific important fact. Your list, or just the refs, just mention scenes. It's not something that needs 11 different cites. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of that long list of episodes. It's too long and the informational value is infinitessimal. --Jenny 07:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Casual viewers who have not seen every episode of new Who may not know where those scenes come from and should they read this article they may seek to learn where they were from. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And how are they supposed to figure that out from the refs? Do you plan to give time indexes, context for each and every one for a general idea? Surely you must see how quickly such a thing will bloat. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. However, I simply cannot understand how providing references for statements made on Wikipedia, thus making them clearer to the reader, is a bad thing. As it currently reads, "clips are shown from earlier episodes", the question is begged "what earlier episodes?" - providing references to these episodes answers this logical question that arises from the passage as is simply and effectively. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus it is far more relevent to the article than informing readers that Dervla Kirwin and David Morrisey have acted with David Tennant before. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that when a reader clicks on a reference, they should be able to understand immediately, either from the content in the reference itself or from the sentence to which it is attached, what it is they're looking for. If I say this episode uses a clip from Turn Left, and then I make a reference to Turn Left, explain how the reader will be able to confirm the statement. Unless they watch both episodes, our plot summaries will not be sufficient for them to identify the meaning of the reference. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My original version explained what the flashbacks showed, e.g. people who had died saving the Doctor, gave the episode titles and provided a reference for each episode. This was removed. I cannot see how this was out of line with what you ask for in your previous statement. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That goes back to it being trivial, a different issue. However, in actually reviewing your list, my original statement stands. How is the reader to understand what scene they are looking for? There is no description of the scene, only its source. Therefore, a reader is left wondering what scene the line speaks of. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The scene is clearly explained as the one in which Davros taunts the Doctor about the deaths he has caused and why these clips are shown is explained as them illustrating people who have died saving the Doctor. I disagree with it being trivial because it provides clarity for the scene and is appropriate under a section that purports to explain Continuity points. Flashbacks require explanation particularly for the benefit of those who do not have extensive knowledge of the episodes in question as I do and I suspect you do too. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

From your list, how am I to know, assuming I knew nothing of the episode, that the Midnight ref is referring to the unnamed hostess? You keep failing to realize that you're giving no context. How you reffed each episode is like saying, "Bush said 'this and that' in Time magazine.<ref>Bush, Time Magazine</ref>". Per my example, in what month, what issue, what page? Did he say more, less? The problem with your refs is that they're not relevant. You're basically telling people to stumble about in the dark. A ref is only helpful is the information it is referencing is immediately apparent to the user. With no context as to whom or what the refs refer to, other than the fact that they refer to a specific episode, the reader is unlikely to find their way. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And you're failing to see what it does add to the article. By listing the episodes concerned a reader will be able to know that in these episodes someone - one of the nameless string of faces featured in the clips (from their perspective) - died to save the Doctor. No, this will not help the reader know who was who in the clips, however it clarifies Davros's point in the episode this article is concerned with. For all a casual viewer/reader knows these people all died in a just a few episodes and this is quite rare in Doctor Who. The number of episodes clips were drawn from reinforces Davros's notion that the Doctor is responsible for many deaths on many occassions. Stating which episodes these are allow casual viewers/reader to gain an understanding of the context in which these people died. No, they won't know who specifically died and at what particular moment in the episode - however, they will be able to gain an impression of in what circumstances someone died for the Doctor - e.g. during a Cybermen invasion of Earth, when a werewolf was on the rampage or when a fat monster designed by a Blue Peter viewer absorbed people. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

All of that hinges on the reader understanding your intent. In the case of the list, it's just redundant. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better simply to list the names of the characters? The episodes in which they featured, and those in which they died, would be apparent in their individual articles. For those minor characters who only appeared in one episode and have no article, create a redirect to the episode. --Jenny 09:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

An idea I also considered, although I went with the other format because I could provide citations for the episodes I was mentioning. I would see this alternative format perfectly acceptable, though I imagine, as this discussion shows, others would not, so I shall not hurry to add the information in this format instead. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is wholly silly. The sentences as they now read are vague to the point of uselessness. I came to this page a few minutes ago because I just saw this episode and was trying to figure out who all of the people shown (and corresponding episodes) were. This is the sort of information that these episode articles usually provide, and I should not have to look into the edit history to get answers. The statements now left in the article are simply puff. I do not see why the practice established in the articles mentioned above by WoF should not be followed. Andrew Levine (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Andrew's point corroborates what I was saying. I have thus done as Jenny suggested. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's pretty good now. --Jenny 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a footnote explaining the origins of the clips as in the cases of recurring characters who have died the clip used (as it is not the moment of death shown in each case) could be from any of the episodes. This footnote establishes where the scene depicted comes from. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Colum, not Colin. Tennant pronounces the name a few times, and pronounces it distinctly as Colum with his precise Scottish accent. The name is an Irish man's name. --Jenny 09:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's actually "Collum" (double l), but I might be wrong. His name appeared in a caption in the trailer for the episode Doctor Who Confidential for Journey's End. Furthermore, this is his given name, not his surname (which is Sanson something). The article should therefore refer to "Sanson-whatever and Tennant", not to "Col[l]um and Tennant". I can't get the episode of Doctor Who Confidential to play at the moment to check these details (it's at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/confidential/ - accessible within the UK only), but if someone else could they might like to check and change the article accordingly. — Paul G (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure from context that it's his first name (so it should be Colum and David, perhaps). I took the spelling from Google. Collum is a common surname, but as a first name Colum seems to be more common. If there is a cast list with his name on, we should use that. --Jenny 11:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For further reference: http://www.columregan.com/ — Edokter • Talk • 09:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The incidental music heard when the TARDIS tows the Earth back to its proper place is a re-vamped version of the Ood's "Song of Freedom" (as heard in Planet of the Ood). Significant enough for a continuity mention? 24.19.25.79 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think so - can you find a source for this? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need a source, it is actually the same - the two episodes can count as primary sources. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not the only one who thought that Davros labeling the Doctor as the "Destroyer of Worlds" was a little hypocritical. Did he just suddenly forget that moments before, he tried to destroy reality itself? Just thought I'd mention that. - Joe (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... take a look at WP:TALK ;). _TalkIslander 20:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But Davros is always stopped and ultimately doesn't destroy anything. Where as the Doctor wipes out the entire Dalek race. AGAIN. It's an intentional irony. Not worth mentioning really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.166.229 (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)