Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The gay question in Doctor Who

I am writing in response to the editor who removed my addition concerning Russell T. Davies' introduction of a gay/bisexual character. It is fair comment and criticism to bring up a radical change in a television show that has been aired on both sides of the Atlantic for decades. These two altered paragraphs were deleted by a self-elected 'guardian' of Doctor Who, and I would like to submit them for public approval. Is there anything inflammatory or personal said against the Doctor Who producer? Is it suddenly wrong to criticize a move that might injure the credibility of a great British institution?

The series' taboo was controversially broken in the 1996 Fox television pilot when the Eighth Doctor was shown kissing companion Grace Holloway. This development may have been calculated to attract female American viewers. The 2005 series strongly hinted at a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. However, another controversy emerged when male companion Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) demonstrated bisexual flirtations with both the Doctor and his companion. During the Ninth Doctor's regeneration story, Harkness places a kiss full on the Time Lord's lips.

Whereas both Doctor Who producers John Nathan-Turner and Russell T. Davies have been openly gay, it must be noted that, in ten years of Doctor Who, Nathan-Turner never incorporated his own lifestyle into a single storyline. Whether Davies' bold, provocative statement will alienate mainstream Doctor Who fans remains to be seen.

I guess the difference between JNT and RTD, is that the BBC in 1980s would never have allowed such content in the show, but after the success of shows like RTD's Queer as Folk, noone bats an eyelid anymore. There is more controversy over the 12-rating of the Dalek episode [1] Tim! (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and both The Happiness Patrol and The Curse of Fenric had gay themes (admittedly not blatantly). Tim! (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me just start off by stating how I viewed the events. This is simply as background. I didn't see a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. That is, no part of the show made me think there was any actual sexual activity between the two. Harkness is a different matter, of course, though even in this case, only some flirtation seemed to have actually taken place.

I have no problem whatsoever with the first paragraph given above. In fact, it may even be worth expanding it to state whether or not this is the first time on mainstream, prime-time t.v. that an openly bisexual major character has been portrayed. I suspect not, but at least one of my friends have stated it is so.

Your second paragraph, however, is much more inflammatory in my opinion. Presumably by 'lifestyle', you mean homosexuality. Because certainly Nathan-Turner incorporated large parts of his lifestyle apart from homosexuality. Additionally, the paragraph reads to me that having a bisexual character in the show is deeply shocking. I'm not at all sure this is true and even if it is, it probably shouldn't be, not this far past the 19th century. In any case, you may well not have intended the second paragraph to read as such (and, let's face it, perhaps nobody else would find it at all inflaming). Anyway, I think the second paragraph could be rewritten to be a bit more encyclopedic. --Yamla 21:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would note that there was no controversy surrounding Jack's introduction as a bisexual character, unlike what the added paragraph implies. There was no public outcry; there wasn't even a glimmer of a whisper about that kiss in The Parting of the Ways - the torture scene in Dalek drew more attention because of Mediawatch's complaint. So even that first paragraph is inaccurate. This is editorialising, not encyclopedic. --khaosworks 22:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Having read your collective assessments, I find it evident that we do have a controversy on our hands. For the record, I also wrote two editorials in the Sci-Fi Channel magazine in 1996 and 1997 protesting Paul McGann's romance with Dr. Grace Holloway -- because it felt unfaithful to the series. I feel the same is true about this current development. Small wonder why the U.S. Sci-Fi Channel did not pick up the new series after "viewing several episodes?" Until the last few episodes with Jack Harkness, my wife and I could not figure why they would pass up a "sure bet" for the year 2005.

I may only seem part of a Doctor Who minority, but I did notice reviewers on the Time Meddlers website expressing some qualified doubts as to whether children should be exposed to gay or bisexual themes. I would not even object so much to a same-sex relationship portrayed among the supporting cast, as some may have interpreted from Judson and Millington in the "Curse of Fenric" screenplay. ("Happiness Patrol" is another matter entirely -- my wife and I disagree with the Discontinuity Guide on this score! If one goes looking for gay subtexts, one will find them even where they do not exist!) But we should categorically draw the line when the Doctor engages in such behaviour, however fleetingly or ambiguously. Having two men kissing openly on a "gay theme" series, such as the aforementioned Queer as Folk, is one thing, but this show is supposed to be Doctor Who! Is he indeed the same alien portrayed by Pat Troughton or Jon Pertwee?

Russell Davies had a responsibility to all Doctor Who fans -- not just those receptive to his views. This new wrinkle in the Doctor's character almost comes across as a "Trojan Horse," wherein Davies slips his agenda into the Time Lord's persona. I had no quarrel with the Third Doctor's mainstream liberal arguments (as espoused by Malcolm Hulke, Bob Baker & Dave Martin, et. al.), although I felt Barry Letts' New Age affectations could undermine the show's credibility. I loved the series when it took on the fascist right ("Inferno," "The Green Death,") as well as the lunatic fringe ("Operation Golden Age" and even the ridiculous "Robot.") I believe with Russell T. Davies as producer, Doctor Who will continue to drift away from the center. If it is now considered "19th Century" to feel uncomfortable with this new development, then "hail Victoria!"

--157.182.224.244 17:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to discuss this on the article itself. You have sufficient evidence to convince me that this is controversial for at least some minority of Doctor Who viewers.

I, like you, disliked when the t.v. movie had the Doctor kiss Grace Holloway, for the same reasons that you gave. However, given that the line has been crossed, I found nothing controversial in having two men kiss openly. More so because the Doctor did not instigate the kiss iirc. However, I understand that some people may find this difficult to deal with.

However, (and only vaguely relevant to the discussion here), I take issue with your drawing a line at bisexual themes. Is there any evidence that these are actually more controversial now than the Third Doctor's liberal arguments were back then? In other words, this may be more controversial to you but if they are no more controversial than previous issues were at their times, is this really worth writing about in an encyclopedia article? That's a legitimate question for discussion, not a rhetorical question, mind you.

Furthermore, I consider it actually part of the t.v. show's duty to push the limits of what society in general considers acceptable, and to explore moral issues. Obviously, this is entirely my opinion.

Finally, thanks for discussing these topics in the appropriate forum rather than just trying to force your changes on the article. It is refreshing to see someone at least willing to listen to other points of view, and to back up their points with sources. --Yamla 17:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Judson Milligton "interpretation" is that of the author Ian Briggs. RTD has no responsibilty to fans whatsoever, only to make cracking good television. If you don't like it, poor you. Tim! (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

My comment still stands - while the controversy during following the 1996 telemovie was evident (and, as you say there were even editorials in Sci-Fi Magazine), there is no such "public" flap over Jack aside from some conversation/argument on some fan sites. I'm challenging this not just on the idea that it is soapboxing but even more so its lack of notability; the Mediawatch brouhaha over Dalek we mentioned because they made a very public complaint, but this one? There's been nary a blip in mainstream media.

Consider this discussion a blip. --157.182.123.51 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Still not good enough. --khaosworks 15:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is a very vague rumour that Mediawatch has threatened another complaint but none has surfaced as yet, and given the lapse in time since the finale, it's unlikely. And even if Mediawatch put in a complaint, it should go in the show notes for Parting of the Ways, not the main article, because it's just one watchdog organisation. --khaosworks 00:21, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of Mr. Pope's response, his attitude is proof that a majority of Doctor Who fans (as with any show) cannot stand to have their 'show pony' criticized. Have Doctor Who fans become so desperate for a new show that they will accept anything? Since boyhood, I have loved the 'classic' series, and while the series certainly had to evolve for the new century, I feel it needed to remain true to its original focus. Russell Davies should not force the rest of the world to watch something they would find unappealing -- and that goes for the Slitheens bathroom humour as well. Even if the fans do not see a gay controversy, there's certainly one in the "real world." Furthermore, not all of those who dislike intimate gay/bisexual displays are stereotypical Bush right-wingers. As a self-described progressive, I do not feel 'poorly' for disliking the controversial gay theme in the new series, because I believe such things are still against the spirit of Doctor Who's 26 years of broadcast history. Why not have a separate gay-themed science-fiction show, instead of turning a mainstream series like Doctor Who into something it was never meant to be? For my part, I will watch the 26 years of 'classic' Doctor Who, and henceforth ignore anything with Russell Davies' name on it.--157.182.123.51 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for your views - it's an encyclopedia; the fact remains that there is little to no "gay controversy" to speak of in relation to Doctor Who. You are entirely entitled to your opinion, but an encylopedia article isn't the place for editorialising. There are plenty of forums on which you can air your views, just not here. --khaosworks 15:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Having considered the above, ISTM that

The Doctor Who article itself is so long that it doesn't have room for something like this.
There was more controversy over the redesign of the TARDIS than sexual themes in the programme. I did comment to my family that I was surprised that there were such overtly sexual themes in The Doctor Dances, but nobody else had noticed them, these things are probably only invisible to those who already know about them.
There is an element of controversy over any new development in Doctor Who, although these are in most cases minor.
The papers hardly picked up on this, and although one paper said they thought that the ninth Doctor was gay, this doesn't seem relevant to the content of the programme itself.
It's not correct to say that JNT was 'openly' gay. He was quite discreet, even in his memoirs referring to saying that he would claim he had 'slept with a person' rather than referring to the gender of the person concerned.
There is probably room for an article on sexuality in Doctor Who, just as there is probably room also for separate articles on the themes of race, class and gender (yes, encyclopaedically, without resorting to POV). But to include analysis at this level would make the main article unwieldy.

DavidFarmbrough 17:23 BST 18 July 2005

That's why I included these remarks in the commentary, rather than to keep replacing them in the article. Anyway, if any of you are familiar with Denis Diderot's Encyclopedia, his writings were as much criticism as fact. If you love something, you should love it enough to criticize. --157.182.225.22 18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

157.182.123.51, my point was that RTD is making a television program for primarily the BBC One Saturday evening viewing audience, not for us fans. There are some things I personally wasn't too keen on in the new series, such as the many soap opera elements of Rose's family. However, these are things which make the show acceptable to a modern audience so I just ignore them and admire the special effects. If the show had remained true to its original focus, we would not have had a 2005 series, because the majority of the watching public would not be interested in it. Can you really say on the whole though, that was not Doctor Who that we loved from 1963 to 1989? Tim! (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Pope, Doctor Who was more than just watching special effects. I look for much more beyond the surface, which is why I enjoyed the show for its stories and ideas. Even rather lame ones like "Invisible Enemy" had the kernels of good ideas. Considering all the years I had to defend the admittedly dodgy sets and visual gaffes against my big-budget Star Trek & Babylon 5 mates, I think I have some room to talk. Most of the stories, with the possible exception of Mark Gatiss's Victorian tale and parts of "Dalek," did not feel like Doctor Who in terms of writing quality. In fact, like the worst of the JNT era, RTD derived much from previous companions and scenarios. What's the Rose & "Bad Wolf" thing, but a retake on Ace being a "Wolf of Fenric?" While I agree that some aspects, like the soap opera touches and the bathroom humor, might be ignored in the series' favor, I have to draw the line at the gay/bisexual question. If this makes me a minority, then so be it! --157.182.225.22 18:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, what _is_ the problem with a bisexual character? Certainly, we all know there are bisexual people in real life. I presume, then, that the controversy isn't over the introduction of Jack but rather that Jack kisses the Doctor (it did not seem to me that the Doctor kissed Jack, mind you). If the controversy is over the Jack character being bisexual, that would simply be bigotry. If the problem is that the Doctor really shouldn't have any level of sexuality, that's reasonable. If the problem is that people are uncomfortable with the level of sexuality on Doctor Who itself, that's also reasonable I suppose. The show has historically not dealt with sexual matters, with only a few exceptions. --Yamla 19:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Mr 157, we are drifting off the point... basically, television viewers are not the same as they were fifteen years ago, when a gay kiss would indeed have been controversial. It isn't now. Britain has a ranting tabloid press, and there was not a murmur. Maybe when aired in USA, there will be complaints. I don't intend to engage further in this line of discussion as it's going nowhere. When you find substantial evidence of a controversy, then reopen this discussion. Tim! (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

IMHO: I find nothing wrong with the bisexual kiss in question. It was initiated by Jack, an alien, received with good manners by the Doctor, another alien, and there was nothing sexual or provocative in the kiss. You have to remember that Jack's culture is more liberal than ours. It doesn't automatically make the Doctor gay when he accepts the kiss. He's respecting Jack's culture, like he respects ours. No-one I know cared - in fact, my mother found it funny. --Jamdav86 09:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Aren't most Doctor Who fans gay anyway? --82.27.201.86 19:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Doctor Who fans, are, in my experience, a wonderful and diverse group of people. Some are gay, yes. Some are straight. Some are bisexual. Some are furry. If Doctor Who has taught me anything, it's a respect for diversity. The show has, over the years, given me many positive messages, and has numerous times attempted (succesfully, in my case) to instill positive values in it's audience. Of course, I don't believe you're asking a serious question: It seems to me that you meant it as an insult, as if being gay was something inheirtly bad, and Doctor Who fans are lame, har, har. Unfortunatly, that's just bigotry and homophobia. If you were attempting to rile me (or anybody else) up, you failed.--Sean|Bla ck 20:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was a well-intentioned joke based on the popular perception that the majority of pre-2005 Doctor Who fans were gay, and the conflict between that image and subsequent complaints about a bisexual companion joining the series. Here, I'll do another one: "Aren't most Doctor Who fans humourless?" --82.27.201.86 18:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't fathom where you get the idea that there is a "popular perception that the majority of pre-2005 Doctor Who fans were gay", because it simply isn't true. I'll assume good faith here, but that's just plain wrong, I'm afraid. And no, most Doctor Who fans aren't humourless, especially not one who considers The Horns of Nimon to be one of the nost enjoyable serials in Doctor Who's history.--Sean|Bla ck 21:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I got the idea from a gay friend of mine who is also a massive Doctor Who fan and has been for years. He was always going on about the unusually large gay fanbase. The concept was also widespread enough to turn up in sci-fi magazine SFX a few years ago. And as for the humourless question... QED. --82.27.201.86 10:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting beyond anything to do with the article. No more, please. There's on-line forums to talk about this kind of thing or throw barbs at each other. Enough. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I do feel I need to point out that Jacks's bisexuality wasn't actually brought in by Russell T Davies in any way more significant than as a footnote. Steven Moffat, the writer of Jack's first story, has said in interviews that after being given the character outline, Russell then said over the phone 'Oh, by the way, he's omnisexual, he'll shag anything but it probably won't come up'. Moffat then took this to be a challenge, and Russell's later scripts were to remain consistent with the charater as established. So it really was not any agenda, Moffat is a heterosexual with a son, so didn't incorporate Jack's bisexuality as any sort of comment on his own 'way of life', and Russell didn't think that it would come up, so it wasn't really him putting his own mark on the series through the use of sexuality. 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC) An obsessive Dr Who Fan with too much time on his hands

Wikiportal

Should the wikiportal link be moved to the top of the page like Star Wars? --Jamdav86 10:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Tried that once, it looked really ugly. --khaosworks 10:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks fine if you have it below the image like this. Thoughts? --ßjwêþþ Tæ|k 11:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Still don't like it. But that's just me. --khaosworks 12:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is this any better? --ßjwêþþ Tæ|k 12:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I think my problem is really with the entire template design as well. But like I said, that's just my opinion. I, of course, will bow to consensus. --khaosworks 12:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

So, what does everybody else think, does the portal notice look O.K. at the top or not?

I prefer the first one, otherwise I would get annoyed by the empty space and I would be discussing here how to fill it. --Jamdav86 15:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

O.K., the first one is better, but should it go at the top or stay at the bottom? --ßjweþþ (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to the top. Some people like me spnd so long browsing Wikipedia that we give up at the links part. The Wikiportal is a valuable tool that should be made common knowledge. --Jamdav86 08:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Parodies

Maybe we should have a list of Doctor Who Parodies, seeing as there is no room for them in the article. Is it of encylopedic value though? Thoughts? (I am refering to [2] and [3]) --ßjweþþ (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you want a beta — β rather than an esset — ß ;) Tim! (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My view is that they aren't encyclopedic unless they are really notable. We do mention Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, as well as the parodies of Cybermen and Daleks in their respective articles, but those are the really famous ones. I don't think Lenny Henry's spoof of Doctor Who is notable, for example, despite its appearance on the Fatal Death video release. Jim Broadbent's, however (in Victoria Wood), is because he ultimately played the Doctor in Fatal Death. --khaosworks 22:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Enemy

When are the enemy mentioned in Doctor Who, and is there anything about them on Wikipedia? --βjweþþ (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the Eighth Doctor Adventures, but we never see them, since they are part of this future "War in Heaven". See Faction Paradox. --khaosworks 12:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

it still doesnt make sense. --βjweþþ (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mmm? The Enemy were never revealed: that was really the point, in the end. They were part of this apocalyptic future that never came to pass because the Eighth Doctor blew up Gallifrey. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Co-production?

The CBC deal is a broadcast deal and not a co-production deal. One BBC press release has been identified that refers to a co-production deal and even this is ambiguously worded. The end credits in the UK do not refer to CBC asa co-producer. Neither do CBC have an executive producer working on the programme (which would be standard practice in co-production). The most recent series of Doctor Who has been exclusively produced by BBC Wales. It is entirely credible that an extra credit appears on the Canadian broadcast as part of the deal if sufficient funding had been provided. However, this is not co-production. That is like saying that a creditor for a production should be considered a production partner. This is simply not the case. Many small scale creditors fund film productions, but are not co-producers. If we follow the logic of this argument then all British licence fee payers should be given a credit for co-production. (unsigned comment by User:Valiant Son taken from the Talk:Doctor Who/Archive2#CBC involvement?)

The line says "in association with", which is the "suitably vague" version that was decided on when this issue was last raised rather than outright saying it was a co-production. While I am certain that the CBC's involvement was merely in terms of funding, I am unconvinced that it is insignificant enough to ignore - why, then does the BBC not refer to their broadcast deals with Australia, Hungary, etc. as co-productions? The co-production credit is documented: what you are asserting has, as yet, nothing to back it up. Please cite sources. I would be convinced if there was some authoritative or definitive source you could point to. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that CBC are not co-producers. They do not have a co-production credit. The specifics of the broadcasting deal that they have with the BBC may well be such that on their broadcast of the programme an end credit is given "in association". This does not mean that they are involved in production. It is therefore fundamentally wrong to even imply that they are co-producers. The production of the programme is entriely in-house at the BBC. Pretending otherwise serves no purpose. Why you insist on continuing to peddle this idea is beyond me. Frankly the presence of CBC money made not one iotas difference to the plans of the BBC to produce this series of Doctor Who. It was commissioned in-house by the Controller of BBC1 for that channel to fill an identified gap in the current schedules. The project was green-lit and funding allocated prior to the deal with CBC. That the CBC deal meant funds could be directed elsewhere in other areas of production is irrelevant to the production of Doctor Who. Continuing to suggest, imply or even intimate otherwise is nonsense. Without the specific contracts signed by BBC and CBC I am unable to refer to the specific aspects of the deal, but then neither are you. It therefore makes more sense to refer to all documentation (barring one vague press release from the BBC - and, as a British citizen I can assure you that they've been wrong before) from the production office and the on-screen credits in all countries other than Canada to identify the source of production. You failed to pick up on my point about this lack of credit or the lack of an executive producer credit for someone at CBC. Without any production credit they cannot be considered to be co-producers. It is standard practice in the UK for programmes that are the result of co-production to be credited as such, both with executive producers for all companies concerned and with a corporate ident at the end of the programme (see the BBC's many co-productions with WGHB for evidence of this). Doctor Who has no such credit in either area and is, therefore, a solely in-house production. Indeed, much has been made of this in the UK about this. It has been highly unusual for the BBC to commit so readily and fully to large scale drama production entirely in-house since the 1980s. The only regular instance of sole in-house production other than Doctor Who (for drama) exists with the BBC's soap operas. Valiant Son 23:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay- This is coming down to semantics and your POV, so I reverted your last edit. The consensus has already been reached. Also, in Canada the show is broadcast with a logo affixed onto the end and begining credits announcing "This is a CBC Production" Okay?Sean Black 00:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You cannot state that a consensus has been reached. This is a living document and nobody has copyright or control. I have outlined a host of reasons as to why the statement is highly dubious (if not entirely erroneous). The inclusion of this caption on Canadian broadcast does not change my point (indeed, I have acknowledged that this may well be the case). Whether or not CBC place this caption on or not doesn't alter the fact that it is not a co-production. The BBC do not credit it as such and CBC have no rights over the series. These rest entirely with BBC television (after many years at BBC Worldwide nee BBC Enterprises). Valiant Son 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I was unaware of the rule about reverting pages. Thank-you for pointing it out to me. Valiant Son 00:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And yet, the line doesn't say it's a co-production, it says that it is "in association with" - which is the credit that is given. Once again, I have to say that this particular position is documented while yours is not, while I cannot point to the specifics of the deal, there is nothing vague about "co-production partner". The "in association with" phrasing was chosen because it struck a compromise between out and out saying that it was a co-production and not acknowledging CBC's involvement at all. During the entire "Rose" leak flap BBC news repeatedly referred to CBC as a production partner. Your position is, therefore, unfortunately as yet undocumented and POV. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

If it is only, "in association with", then I fail to see the relevance of its inclusion in the article. I must confess that I didn't once see, hear or read a BBC news report that referred to CBC as a production partner during the period you mention. I live in Britain and watch BBC news on television, listen to it on the radio and read it on their website. Anyway.... I give in. You can have it your way. I'm bored of the pettiness. The article is currently wrong, but hey-ho if it makes people happy. Valiant Son 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I read BBC News on the web, too - I prefer it to most other news sources, and I assure you that the CBC was referred to as a "partner", be it broadcast or co-production. The reason why it's in is simply to acknowledge that CBC apaprently did pump development money into the series during its production stages beyond just buying the broadcast rights after the fact - for completeness and accuracy. It doesn't mean that CBC had any creative input, I hasten to add. Also, I don't agree that the article is wrong; if anything, your edit of it takes away that added detail. And please, read WP:FAITH - it's not a matter of being petty, it's a matter of keeping it factually as accurate as we can make it, and to take the CBC away would be an inaccuracy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

For further documentation, here's two articles - BBC investigates Doctor Who leak, 8 March 2005, which refers to CBC as a "co-production partner" and Doctor Who leak suspect is sacked, 24 March 2005, which refers to CBC as a "broadcast partner". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you put this into the article in good faith. That was never in question. However, as you concede that CBC had no editorial input to the production then it is wrong to give them the credit they currently receive. It is highly misleading and this is why the article is wrong. However, I have already said that I have no intention of pursuing this any further as it is wasting both your time and mine. Best wishes. Valiant Son 12:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Noticed the ammendment you made Khaosworks. I think this is much more appropriate. The former wording did imply editorial input, but the new wording does make clear that it is a financial involvement only. I think this is a fair compromise. Thanks for your work on this (and all the other excellent work you've put into this article). Valiant Son 15:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Rose and the Ninth Doctor

Can the new series really be said to have "strongly hinted at a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler"? Although at times there were undertones of mutual attraction between the characters, I cannot see that it was "strongly hinted" that any physical relationship or sexual contact of any sort ever took place. Jdhowens90 20:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that it can. There is clearly an affection between the two, but then so was their with previous Doctors and their companions, e.g. Romana, Jo Grant. Valiant Son 20:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No. It seems very wide of the mark and is even contradicted by various dialogue, and pretty much the whole of The Doctor Dances. DavidFarmbrough 25 August 2005 08:56 (BST)

Check the rephrasing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

This hasn't been re-phrased since Jdhowens90's original comment on 23rd August. DavidFarmbrough 25 August 2005 09:26 (BST)

Yes it has. It reads now, "strongly hinted at the possibility of a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler." (my emphasis) i.e. it hints that it could go further, but it doesn't hint that the relationship exists. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the comment needs to be there at all though. Why do we need this specualtion on what is meant to be a factually accurate entry. It isn't even worthwhile in terms of the concept being a new one given the relationship between the Fourth Doctor and Romana (II). Furthermore, this "strongly hinted at" idea is entirely subjective. People have inferred that there may be more to the relationship. That is not the same as it being implied. Even if it were implied (and that is pushing it) the ultimate issue remains one of subjectivity and therefore is a matter of POV. Valiant Son 21:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it's there - I don't think anyone can objectively deny that this entire "we're not a couple" bit is a tease that Davies has put in, and fan speculation - if it's notable and widespread as this one is - is still factual enough to be encyclopedic. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:27, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is not an issue that has been stated within the programme. Neither has it been referred to as such in any interview given by any member of the production team. All that has been said is that they are close. So what? I'm close to people who I have entirely platonic relationships with - m my family spring to mind for a start and then there are a number of friends. Furthermore it still remains irrelevant.

How can "fan speculation" (your words) be anything other than POV???? That is not factual. you cannot have factual speculation! The very idea is utter nonsense - it's an oxymoron! Valiant Son 18:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Khaosworks isn't saying that it's a fact- he's saying that the speculation is notable and widespread, which it is. The wording now is perfectly neutral- oh, and if I recall correctly Davies mentioned it -in comparison to the TVM kiss- In one of the Confidentials. Sean 19:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the paragraph as it currently stands. I rephrased it some time ago based on the reservations expressed above:

Despite the fact that the majority of the Doctor's companions are young, attractive females, the series maintained a longstanding taboo against any overt romantic involvement in the TARDIS. However, that has not prevented fans from speculating about possible romantic involvements, most notably between the Fourth Doctor and the Time Lady Romana (whose actors Tom Baker and Lalla Ward shared a romance and brief marriage in real life). The taboo was controversially broken in the 1996 television movie when the Eighth Doctor was shown kissing companion Grace Holloway. The 2005 series played with this idea by having various characters think that the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler were a couple, which they denied.

I don't see how any of this is non-factual or POV. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I confess that I hadn't noticed the revisions to the paragraph. Valiant Son 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Partly my fault. I publicised the first rephrasing of the paragraph here but not the second. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Neither has it been referred to as such in any interview given by any member of the production team"

Um, okay not the production team but Steven Moffat said in Doctor Who Confidential 10. "Werid Science"

"Obiviously, and fairly quite overtly really, the subtext of this show is the Doctor is hopelessly in love with Rose and trying to impress her."

And in Confidental 13. "The Last Battle" John Barrowman says

"When he kisses her, it's not only something he's wanted to do throughout the entire series..."

So while the production team haven't said it, some people involved in the series have. Which isn't nessarily proof as the production team could pull away from all this but it could be noted that it isn't just fans who think this. GracieLizzie 16:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn that Russell T Davies used the phrase "love story" at some point, although I can't put my finger on it right now... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

music

Minor queries on the music bit - did the Human League really ever cover the Dr Who theme? I must have nearly every thing they've ever released, down to obscure B-sides, I've never heard their cover of it! (There is an instrumental called "Tom Baker", but this is not a cover of Grainer's theme). I would hesitate to call Howell's 1980 re-working of the theme "disco" (even slightly ;-) The them is 12/8 rather than 4/4, so couldn't possibly considered 'disco' in terms of musical genre - it doesn't have a disco beat or rhythm. --feline1 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I just had this discussion on Talk:Doctor Who theme music. :) Making alterations accordingly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I would delete this bit:

The Pogues used a bass line in their song "Wild Cats of Kilkenny" (from Rum, Sodomy & the Lash) that is similar to the Doctor Who theme, as did Pink Floyd in "One of These Days" (from Meddle).

There are bucketloads of songs that use this very standard bass/chord progression, I've used it myself many times. It surely pre-dates Dr Who and i'm sure that Ron Grainer would never have claimed to have made it up himself quercus robur 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing episodes addition

Histrion, I removed that paragraph (after some attempts to rephrase it) because ultimately I realised that that additional sentence basically qualifies the whole thing out of existence, so it becomes a tabloid saying one thing and someone else saying, "Yeah, but it's okay." Not sure it's significant enough. Feel free to discuss if you disagree. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nah, by the time I tacked on the last sentence, I was beginning to doubt whether the new material was worth adding myself. :) However, if this topic pops up again in the press, it might be worth including the Sunday Mirror's original mention of it. --Jay (Histrion) 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Children in need 2005

I've heard 15 minutes, 30 minutes and now 3.5 minutes for this special mini-episode. Anyone have the right answer?

According to (The Register [4]) its 30 minutes at 9PM.

It also implies that this mini episode will be part the continuity of Doctor Who. (I hope not.) --Billpg 23:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My understanding, based on a post by the editor of the Outpost Gallifrey fansite on his forum, is that it's a 3.5 minutes that's scheduled to be aired in a certain half-hour block of the "Children in Need" telethon, hence the confusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Josiah's right; it's a 3.5 minute "episode" which is only part of the longer Children in Need special. The director is on record (with BBC Radio Jersey) saying that it is part of continuity and is set right after the end of The Parting of the Ways, linking the first and second series. -- Guybrush 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The episode is actually 7 minutes long. And yes, it is in continuity. --82.27.201.86 10:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

it is actually 3 and a half minutes.ok

No, it isn't. I've timed it myself. From the first frame of the Dalek saucers to the last frame fade out on "Doctor Who will return in The Christmas Invasion" start to finish it's just under 7 minutes (approximately 6 minutes, 55 seconds). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

well the people who make the show confirmed it has 3 and a half minutes

No, they haven't, as far as I know. The 3.5 minute figure came from Outpost Gallifrey, who, although mostly accurate, aren't right all the time. In any case, no matter what anyone claims, there it is on screen. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It was confirmed as being 3.5 minutes before it was aired, but it really is 7 minutes. I watched it! --Whouk (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

7 minutes overall, 3.5 minutes of new material perhaps :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.2.225 (talk • contribs) 02:18, January 14, 2006 (UTC)

Nope, because the recap didn't take anywhere near 3.5 minutes. If you cut out the recap and title sequence and time the new material, it's probably about 5 minutes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 series DVD announcement for US

For anyone who's interested, the website TVShowsonDVD (via SciFiWire) is reporting that the BBC plans to release the 2005 series straight to DVD in the United States in February 2006, bypassing regular broadcast completely.[5] The series had already been announced for a Canadian DVD release. 23skidoo 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

TVShowsonDVD has posted the cover art here. I bet it's gonna cause some confusion with people since the box calls it the "first series" ... even though we all know the first series aired back in 1963-64. ;-) 23skidoo 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah ah ah! The first season aired back in 63/4! 18:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arranging External Links

Do you think it would be wise if someone arranged the websites in certain sections, such as Fan sites, Official sites, &c? DrWho42 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. It is looking a bit unweildy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

yes please.put all fansites in one bit and official sites in another

I've had a quick go to at User:Whouk/DWLinks. Any thoughhts? They're the best headings I could come up with, but there well may be better ones. Should fan sites be split further? --Whouk (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Change it to "Reference sites" and I think you've got it. The fan sites could do with a little internal reorg to group like sites together but I don't think there's a need for further subdivision. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How's that now? I've tried to reorder the fan sites a bit, although there's no obvious way to group them. I've pasted the changes into the main page here so please tinker as necessary. --Whouk (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks all right. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fictional Universes not belong in Wikipedia?

See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive V#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread. Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac|^(talk) 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if this suggestion has been quashed, at least for the moment. But it's likely to come up again due to the widespread prejudice against "fancruft". What can we as project members do to improve the reputation of fiction-related and fan-based articles on Wikipedia, besides ensuring that our articles are of the highest quality and conform with policy and guidelines? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Rose Tyler caption

I was going to change the caption of the Rose Tyler pic, which currently identifies her as "one of the Doctor's current companions". That was accurate when the Doc and Rose were joined by Adam and then Captain Jack, but at the moment (between "The Christmas Invasion" and "New Earth") it's back to the two of them again. But I paused before editing because we know that Mickey will be joining the crew at some point in the second season. Is it better to leave it be and include Mickey, or should the Rose caption be changed to "the Doctor's current companion"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the more neutral "A companion of the current Doctor"? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but that seems to downplay her significance to the current series. I'm leaning towards "the Doctor's current companion" at the moment, but I'd like to hear other opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

How about simply "current companion, Rose Tyler"? Perhaps link to the Who-centric definition of "companion"? --Aderack 12:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Sometimes it's possible to overthink these things. Simple is often the best option. 23skidoo 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

US Broadcast of 2005 series

I feel it is important that a reference to the recently announced US broadcast of the 2005 series be included in the intro section. It can be covered in more detail later in the article, and is, but it took me a good 10 minutes to find that reference. One line, as I have added, early on should suffice. I'd also rather see a reference to the DVD release included as well, since I wasn't even aware a DVD article existed until I searched the bowels of this article. 23skidoo 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it any more important than, say, the broadcast of it in other countries like Italy, or Korea, et al.? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A couple of reasons. First the US is the dominant TV market on the planet, and it was very controversial when SciFi rejected the show in the first place. There are a lot of American Wikipedians to whom this is big news. It is also newsworthy on its own merits having just been announced. Also (though I can't add this until I have a source) the announcement may have a domino effect with regards to the CBC airing of the second season. Also, pragmatically, there needs to be something at the top of the article otherwise you'll just have people endlessly adding it later. Unfortunately, the announcement has robbed DW2005 the chance to be truly groundbreaking as the first major TV series to bypass American broadcast and go straight to DVD which was going to happen with the February release. That will have to wait until another producer decides to make a made-for-DVD series. 23skidoo 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for now it's a good idea to keep that line in there because of the mentioned reasons. When the inital buzz of the news dies down and it begins broadcasting in the states, the line should be removed and let the encompasing paragraph under "Viewership" of where the show is being broadcast internationally be reference. Ultimately, the US broadcast shouldn't get more emphasis than the other countries, especially as the US has a whole Doctor Who in America page (which I guess should be added under "See Also" in this article for completeness). Thehedgehog 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Template:doctor-who infobox at the bottom of the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow on from Thehedgehog's comment, I'm not suggesting it be permanent. It'll change over time just as eventually talk about the 2006 series being in production will be replaced by 2007 production information. My reasoning is this is the first article a lot of people will see on Doctor Who and for many it'll be the only article. They may not know to (or care to) go hunting for Doctor Who in America or any of the more specific articles. And even then, I'm a Wikipedia addict and I had completely forgotten a DW in America article even existed until Thehedgehog mentioned it just now. 23skidoo 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I just realized something this evening that's making me GLOAT. Comcast moved Sci-Fi in many of its markets onto its Digital Cable service, so many of my friends who will want to watch the new series will have to pay to upgrade...or just come over to my house, where WideOpenWest left it in the Basic Plan. Woohoo! (As long as they don't follow suit and move it between now and the airdates!) --JohnDBuell 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Phasing out of historicals

In practice, however, science fiction stories proved to be far more popular with the viewing public, and the "historicals" were dropped entirely after the first few years.

Popular with the viewing public or with the production team? There's a lot of evidence and analysis that suggests the public liked the historicals as much (and sometimes even more). The script book of The Crusade has an interesting bit on this in the background.

I'll change this in a day or two unless anyone has any citations to the contrary. Timrollpickering 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic. When Sydney Newman created the show, he didn't want any explicit SF elements at all beyond the time machine. But the Daleks were such a hit the BBC kept trying to duplicate that success. I believe it was either The Highlanders or The Gunfighters that marked the end of the historicals, only to have them return on an annual basis with Black Orchid during Davison's time. I've yet to see any source that says one way or the other why an all-SF model was adopted, although The Gunfighters is generally considered the Doctor Who equivalent of "Spock's Brain". 23skidoo 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The last "pure" historical before Black Orchid was The Highlanders, and they didn't do another pure historical on TV after that (and still haven't). That line that Tim quotes has been in the article since before I started editing the Doctor Who pages, I think. I haven't read the script book for The Crusade so I'll defer to his view on this. I'll drag out some of my own reference books and see if there's any mention of it and adjust it accordingly if contrary info surfaces. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the reference to "Spock's Brain"... --Whouk (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You mustn't be a Trekkie. "Spock's Brain" is often cited as one of the worst (if not the worst) Trek episodes of all time. The Gunfighters is usually considered one of if not the worst Doctor Who stories. I consider it to be worst, personally, with the possible exception of the OTT Horns of Nimon. 23skidoo 16:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "The Gunfighters" is quite as universally reviled as "Spock's Brain," though. A lot of people have professed to liking it (the writers of the Discontinuity Guide, for instance), and I'm not really aware of any notable contemporary criticism of the story (I didn't hear it mentioned much at all until Peter Haining singled it out for his vitriol, actually). More to the point, I seem to recall that "pure" historicals were already headed on their way out by that point, since Innes Lloyd (IIRC) supposedly did not like them. I think one of the old Doctor Who handbooks talked about this: I'll try to see if I can dig it up. My hunch, at this stage, is that while the sci-fi stories probably were slightly more popular with the public (it's hard to think of a historical that had the impact of any of the early Dalek stories, for instance), the primary reason for their total disappearance were the preferences of the production staff. I'll try and get back with some actual sources on the matter. – Seancdaug 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was what you were getting at. I think I saw "Spock's Brain" a long time ago. But I've never thought of The Gunfighters like that, and I'm not aware that most of the fans I know have. (Very good novelisation, BTW.) I think as a historical that wasn't released on video until relatively late on, it was overlooked more than reviled. If there can be a generality, I'd think the "Spock's Brain" award would usually be given to The Twin Dilemma or Timelash. Anyhoo, I've taken this way off topic... I suspect that, amongst other reasons, once the series was thought of as a sci-fi series, people stopped pitching historicals. --Whouk (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Gunfighters was heavily panned in the early Doctor Who Weeklies/Monthlies when a lot of the writing was done by Jeremy Bentham, and as a result the story has often been near the bottom of fan surveys. It was also, wrongly, believed to be the lowest rating story of all time (at least up until the mid 1980s), but actually outrated The Savages, The War Machines and The Smugglers (although the Audience Appreciation Index is the lowest of all time). Timrollpickering 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Timelash probably occupies the Spock's Brain position in Who fandom more than anything else. Angmering 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the lore of 1970s fandom. I can see them getting a (NPOV, naturally) mention in an article on Who fandom. My DWM writer flatmate has also fingered Peter Haining for the blame... --Whouk (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

He's "fingered Haining"? Sounds deeply unpleasant to me. Angmering 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Haining probably brought it to wider attention but if I've got the order of events correct then I think the story's notoriety amongst the core of UK fans at least predates Doctor Who: A Celebration. Timrollpickering 11:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Where should this go?

There is currently no airdate set for the CBC broadcast of the 2006 season, with some speculation being it might be fall before it's shown in Canada. Since the new series is a CBC co-production (or at least the CBC has its name on the closing credits), this is worth noting. But I have no idea where to put this info. 23skidoo 05:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Possibly as a separate paragraph from the list of stations, under Viewership? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The new season isn't due to start until March, I'm almost positive of that. It might be almost a month after that when it's aired in Canada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --=The Doctor=-- (talk • contribs)

Those infobox episode lengths

What about the twenty-minute episodes (The Mind Robber and some of season eighteen, as I recall)? Or the half-hour one from The Trial of a Time Lord? Angmering 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not too bothered with the small exceptions. As a general summary, I'm not sure it really matters. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So 1985's 13 episodes, out of 696 altogether, isn't a small exception? ;-) Angmering 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a formal change of the ongoing format, even though it was reversed after one season, rather than just a one-off due to circumstances. So it's different from the odd 20 and 30 minute episodes, the special The Five Doctors, Resurrection of the Daleks being doubled up, arguably the TV movie (although there's an open case on that) and The Christmas Invasion.

Channel / Network

I was under the impression that the userbox was using "Network" in the sense that Americans are familiar with, in that it's the transmitting channel. Possibly I'm mistaken. BBC One is, I suppose, technically speaking a network anyway, given that it's transmitted across a network of stations - the only difference being, of course, that (bar the local news opt-outs and a few more notable differences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) the "stations" as such have absolutely no separate on-screen identity or schedule variations of their own and are all owned by the BBC.

Anyway, basically, if this heading doesn't mean the channel that transmits the thing, surely it ought to? Angmering 23:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Channel in the US would be the station: "Channel 46 Atlana", which is part of the CBS network. My impression is that network usually refers to the overarching organisation, channel to that particular um, channel/frequency on which it is broadcast. I would consider BBC One, Two, etc. as channels used to differentiate content, while BBC is still the overall network. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Network is a national/regional entity. Channel is a local entity. So here in Canada it was shown on the CBC network, but if you wanted to list the individual channels you'd have to list a couple dozen at least (CBKST, etc.). It's the same in the US. A show carried by the NBC network is -- in theory -- carried on all affiliates, nationwide, at the same time. Exceptions exist where a show is blacked out due to a station deciding not to air it (see Book of Daniel for an example). So to say BBC is correct (or BBC One if it's considered separate network on its one). Since it's a CBC co-production (at least the 2005-2006 series), I actually feel the CBC should also be listed under the Network banner ... but not Sci-Fi, or the Australian network, etc. because they aren't involved in making the thing. 23skidoo 02:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at some infoboxes on other UK show pages — Life on Mars, Countdown, Blake's 7, EastEnders etc, and they all use "Network" as the actual broadcasting channel — BBC One, Channel 4, etc. Angmering 07:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And so they should. Unlike channels in the US, BBC One and BBC Two (and probably BBC Three and Four, for that matter, though digital channels are another kettle of fish) are each analagous to a US network. They're not regional stations which show roughly the same content, as provided by their affiliated network, they're two different entities, even though they're both controlled by the BBC. Which one carries a programme is is culturally significant, and should be listed. -- Guybrush 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well exactly, that's why I changed it the first time. Angmering 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, about the only place I've ever heard BBC1 called a network is Television Centre, where (at least a few years ago) BBC1 and BBC2 were known as Net 1 and Net 2 respectively. But given the cultural significance, especially when a programme, say, starts out on BBC2 and is sufficiently popular it moves to BBC1, I'd say it's absolutely right to list the specific channel under "Network". Anything else is just pedantry. --Mpk 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. BBC One isn't really a network, and the template is US-centric because the whole network syndication is quite unusual, but BBC itself is even less of a network - that would be like having "Network: Viacom". Morwen - Talk 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the term "network" used in UK broadcasting to mean the basic aerial transmitted channels (e.g. "The network premier" of a film that's been cycled umpteen times on sattelite/cable/digital)? Timrollpickering 12:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammar: The defining comma

This is a respectful note to the uninitiated, since — having now been through a fair number of DW articles for grammatical errors, etc. — this is the one problem I seem to encounter more than any other.

To take a completely unrelated example, examine the following sentence:

The pop group Coldplay's lead vocalist, Chris Martin, is also a talented pianist and guitarist.

Note that there is no comma before 'Coldplay', but there is before and after 'Chris Martin': the reasons simply being that Coldplay are not the world's only pop group, but Chris Martin is the group's only lead vocalist.

If you weren't familiar with this rule before, please adhere to it from now on, as it makes the life of pedants like myself so much easier! Chris 42 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And please put the comma on both sides. Too many writers omit the one after "Martin", which would be relatively harmless in this sentence but usually causes a syntactic muddle. —Tamfang 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who in Canada

Corrected some woefully poor information.

Doctor Who has never aired on CITY-TV in Toronto - let alone had the world-premiere of the 1996 movie! CBC didn't air Doctor Who in 1964. I assume Doctor Who Information Society means Doctor Who Information Network. Maybe we need a Doctor Who in Canada page. Nfitz 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think where the confusion arose re: CBC is that I have a 1964 issue of the CBC Times promoting the show and including it in the listings ... however it's possible the issue might have come out right at the end of 1964. 23skidoo 14:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Classic series" vs. 2005 series

Regarding Josiah's edit regarding the "romance taboo". I thought there was consensus that the 1963-89 and 2005- series were the same show, just with a rather lengthy gap in production? I mean, 4 years elapsed between seasons 6 and 7 of Red Dwarf but you didn't see the 7th season being called a new show. And yes I know the BBC decided to restart the numbering, but creatively the show is a direct continuation and it can't even be called TNG because its features the same lead character, just with a different face. This isn't the same as RTD doing a reboot or doing a show about the Doctor's son or whatever. Part of the problem is Doctor Who has a unique format that doesn't allow the same pigeonholing that was done with Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right in pointing to Doctor Who's unique format as the source of the ambiguity as to whether the current series is a new incarnation or a continuation of the original. From a narrative standpoint, it's a continuation, since the Doctor who fought the Time War offscreen and met the Gelth and Slitheen is clearly the same person who met the Zarbi, Krotons, Aggedor, Scaroth, Mawdryn, Sil, Fenric and "Bruce". But from a production standpoint, it's a bit more ambiguous. We needn't go into the details here, but the main point is that aside from a few returnees like Mike Tucker and ~~Graham Williams~~ Graeme Harper, the production staff and production structure of the programme is completely new, which is why the clapboards for Rose didn't have the production code 7R (or whatever) on them. Suffice it to say that there are legitimate arguments on both sides, and we shouldn't fall strongly on the "one show" side.

The point I was making with the "romance" edit, however, wasn't meant to be about whether the programme was one show or two, but just to highlight the somewhat different attitudes the "classic series" (however you want to refer to it) and the new series have towards romance, in particular Doctor-companion romance. Although the new series does keep a level of "plausible deniability" for old-school fanboys who recoil at the notion of the Doctor having any romantic feelings towards his companion, it also shows a rather blatantly romantic sensibility for viewers who choose to see it that way. Consider the kiss between the Doctor and Rose in The Parting of the Ways — yes, it serves a plot purpose (the Doctor removing the vortex energy from Rose), but it also acts as the culmination of a very real romantic subplot that was present throughout the 2005 series. RTD and the other writers were very careful to give material for both those who wished to see the relationship as a romantic one, and those who didn't — but I think the finished product of The Parting of the Ways comes down on the romantic side. (Just listen to the swelling violins under that kiss!) The new series has very cleverly found a way to have its cake and eat it too when it comes to the Doctor and romance, and this is clearly a change of policy from the position held by the original series for most of its run. That's all I was trying to say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean Graeme Harper? Graham Williams is, sadly, very unlikely to be working on the new series... —Whouk (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And I don't even have a stinking cold to blame! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no argument regarding the romance issue, as it is a case of the show evolving in a sense. Although the BBC still treats it like a kids show, RTD is well aware that it stopped being such way back probably around the time Pertwee came along if not earlier. Under the old regime, the show couldn't get away with anything more than innuendo (i.e. between Romana2 and the Doctor in City of Death). Today's viewers -- particularly those who have never seen the original series -- expect different kinds of relationships between lead characters. To have a young, attractive, apparently unattached man travelling the cosmos with a sexy blonde and not have something happen would be seen as unrealistic. (I had a friend try to explain this to me and it kinda makes sense). The only other option would have been to indicate outright that the Doctor was gay -- but then viewers would have demanded something happen with Jack. So RTD really has no choice but to follow this direction. It's not really out of character for the show as a whole -- after all, this Doctor is hundreds of years older than the chaste Doctors of the past, and the First Doctor didn't seem to like humans at all. 23skidoo 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a similar thing happened when "The Simpsons" started to deal with issues like adultery ("Colonel Homer") and suicide (practically every episode involving Moe).

Actually, a very unlikely but technically possible scenario is that Doctors 1-7 were castrati and that 8-10 aren't.

That's going a little too far. Besides, remember the Doctor has a granddaughter (and despite all that's been written about her in spin-off media, in the TV series itself which takes precedence there has yet to be any indication Susan was anything but his biological granddaughter). 23skidoo 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Touche. But there's no indication that Hartnell was the original incarnation of the Doctor.

I completely disagree. It has been stated numerous times that the Tennant Doctor is the 10th Doctor. And if you wan to just go by on-air references, I refer you to "Mawdryn Undead" in which the Fifth Doctor takes an accounting of his remaining regenerations, and the Fox movie which explicitly states that the McCoy doctor was the Seventh. I believe The Three Doctors also clearly indicates that Harnell was the original -- in fact I know for certainty this is stated in The Five Doctors (albeit it's uttered by Hurndall impersonating Hartnell). 23skidoo 19:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)