Talk:Smith and Jones (Doctor Who)

Synopsis?

Given the Fincham confirmation, would it be appropriate to write up a basic synopsis of the plot at this time, or should we wait for a released summary? Radagast 02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Judoon image

I've removed the image because not yet aired episodes shouldn't have an image in my opinion.

• Xdt 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Courtney?

As far as actors to play other roles before the one they are later better known for, what about Nicholas Courtney? He first appeared in a William Hartnell story before later appearing with Troughton as Colonel Lethbridge-Stewart.

did he?

Yes. Yes he did.

Rhinos?

Are we sure they're all Rhinos? I remember a pig appearing in that trailer too, like the one from the Slitheen invasion. Andral 18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that in a dark, rural-looking area, though? (And I recall taking a closer look at it, and it looked a bit more "real" than the one from the Slitheen invasion.)

I dunno, I still don't think it's fair to specify that they're a race of rhino people until we get more footage or images, that part of the preview being my excuseAndral 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They're Rhinos - see Doctor Who mag issue 379 (or 380 when it's released). 380 released 1st March - that will give more info on the Judoon. But it has got a couple of pics of them... UltimateNagash 14:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is some footage, the third clip features the Judoon leader. This is a spoiler for the first episode.[1]--MrWez 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Martha. Martha Jones

From the way I saw it, the quote "Martha. Martha Jones" was from two clips from separate episodes, so is wrong. I think she just says "Martha". Damiancorrigan 12:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Black dalek?

I watched the teaser and was excited when I saw a BLACK DALEK! Is this the same Dalek from Doomsday? 86.140.43.136 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems so — but he won't be in this episode (as far as we know). Dalek Sec is expected to show up in Daleks in Manhattan, along with a few of his mates. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

By saying "along with a few of his mates," you make him sound almost human, before he was. —Joshua Issac (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast date

Can we get a referenced source on the March 24? It gels with what I've seen projected, but I'm unaware of a specific official source. Radagast 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Judging from outpost gallifrey forums, there still doesn't seem to be any firm news on the matter, so I suggest it be removed. Morwen - Talk 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I just noticed it myself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebodies added it back in again, and added March 31st to The Shakespeare Code. --GracieLizzie 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't take this as true, but it does fit in with the book releases. The first one is released on the 1st of March, so I think it would rather strange to have the new companion in a book either before she actually got on the TARDIS, or that they show her getting on it soon afterwards. Did that make sense? I hope so... UltimateNagash 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Last year, I bought books in the Stone Rose batch on the Wednesday before the series started. I don't think they were "supposed" to be on the market, though!--Rambutan (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What Nagash says is reasonable, but we still can't add the date until it's been confirmed by the BBC. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of TV Times? In it David Tennant confirms this will be broadcast in March, but I don't have a copy of thid so I just added a temporary reference. Could someone please replace it with a better reference? Using a citation template please?--GracieLizzie 15:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I managed to get a copy today :) --GracieLizzie 17:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Josiah - but from the above comments I think I'm wrong. Oh well, only a guess. UltimateNagash 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

does anybody actually know WHEN the episode is airing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.124.36 (talk • contribs) 16:46, February 14, 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: no. There are various rumours, but nobody except the Beeb knows for sure, and they're not telling yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the episode air date is wrong - Doctor Who Mag says 24th of March. So I suggest you watch that week to make sure. OK? UltimateNagash 11:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the 31st, it was going to be the 24th but it was changed at the last minute because of an Athletics Comp being televised (I think). However this change of mind was so late that there wasn't enough time for DWM's editors to stop the incorrect date from going to print, in fact I think all the magazines had already been printed and were due to be shipped when they were sent to print. GracieLizzie 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sun are now reporting it's not on until April.

But it's the Sun - can you trust it :D UltimateNagash 18:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything said by The Sun needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, they have been wrong to many times in the past to be seen as 'reliable' they seem to have a habbit of accidently publishing rumors rather then fact.--Wiggstar69 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definately the 31st of April - the BBC site says it is | BBC Site UltimateNagash 12:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Briggs as Judoon voice?

What's the source for this? If it's the "Beyond the Vortex" segment that aired on BBC7 after part one of Human Resources, I'm not sure that's good enough — he just said that he was recording voices for some aliens in the 2007 series, and ran into Anne Reid and Roy Marsden. That just means that he recorded the voices during the filming of Smith and Jones. While it seems likely that he was doing voices for the Judoon, it's not definite — there could be another group of aliens in the story, or he could have been recording voices for a later episode while Smith and Jones was filming. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is doing the Judoon voices, but we should be careful not to add info until it's confirmed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've listened to the "Beyond the Vortex" again, and although it does seem pretty clear that he's talking about monsters for this story, it's still possible that there's another monster besides the Judoon that we don't know about. I've removed the specific listing from the cast list, and included his actual quote in the "cast notes" section. If/when we learn that the voice is the Judoon, we can re-add it then. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

David Tennant has confirmed it. http://team-tennant.com/dtint/id171.htm (talk

That link is broken. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Try an l at the end. Morwen - Talk 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Plasmavores?

(SPOILER WARNING): a thread on OG suggests that the Plasmavores are the "real baddies" in episode one, and are driven away by the Judoon, who are speculated to be either goodies or merceneries hired to fight them. For the article?--Rambutan (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I then assume that it'd be OK to add a mention of them, since no-one's replied to the contrary?--Rambutan (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been avoiding the OG spoiler forum, so I can't speak to the reliability of this notion. For Wikipedia's purposes, we've got to stick to what reliable sources have said. The OG forum isn't a reliable source. If there's another source for this rumour — an article in SFX, say, or Dreamwatch's new website — we might be able to add it; we'd have to judge whether the source meets the standards of WP:ATT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, but it would explain why we're not yet sure which episode the P/vores are in, and the Beeb's comment that something in the hospital is "out for blood".--Rambutan (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds probable, but it's still speculation. We can't add our speculation, or the speculation of other fans on forums — the only sort of speculation we can add is speculation from reliable sources.  :/ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to say "I told you so", but I told you so. :-) Sounds like a rather busy episode, doesn't it.--Rambutan (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you were right that the Plasmavores were in this episode; but I was right too, that we needed to wait for a reliable source. Rumours can be true, but we still need to follow WP:ATT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, I was only joking!--Rambutan (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On the new episode homepage, it seems to have a Judoon saying "Sentence execution!" So it is very probable that the plasmavore is on the run from the Judoon. Will the Doctor be stuck in the middle? Also very probable.--MrWez 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to 1996 TV movie pilot

This episode has several similarities to the 1996 TV pilot with Paul McGann; It's set in a hospital, The Doctor's new assistant is a (trainee) doctor, and the Doctor is barefoot. Are these deliberate refrences? (AndrewAnorak 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) RT-D has said that he admires the 1996 TV pilot with Paul McG, and Spearhead from Space. Both have inspired the series since its 2005 revival. Look how many episodes are set in hospitals! DavidFarmbrough 09:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Is three pictures too many for this page?

I like all three of the pictures, although, the pictures to writing ratio is to large. I would consider moving the third picture of the doctor and martha onto the doctor who serieals page 'or' deleting it altogether. The reason for picking this picture is that it is nothing to do with episode 1 of series 3, but one of the later episodes. I'll leave this comment up for a while if I don't get any negative feedback I'll delete the picture.--Wiggstar69 23:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the common consensus was "one screenshot per episode-or-serial article"? I prefer one screenshot on episode an article pages (on episode from all series) myself. I definitely think the third one (which is from an advert for the whole series not necessarily just this episode) should go, and personally I think #2 is a bit "meh". I like #1 the most, but that may change if on broadcast another scene is shown to sum up the episode better without being too spoilery. GracieLizzie 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep — one image per episode article is the general rule, in part to keep within the spirit of WP:FU. And yes, we can change the image after broadcast. I've removed the extra ones. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorted then.--Wiggstar69 08:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vineeta Rishi? - Cast

Vineeta Rishi has been added to the cast on the page and I was wondering how the person who added her found out about this, all I could find about her was thats she has been in The Bill quite a few times,(also she doesn't seem to have a page yet).--Wiggstar69 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

On this page i'd say (like I did on the Shakespeare Code) that this particular picture isn't as good as the one before it of Martha. The remaining pictures Smeggles has added on the other pages I think are fine. If you think the same comment and we'll consider swapping them again.

Your obviously not happy with the picture of Martha (whoich I think is more centural to the episode then your picture) if you think different please discuss first.--Wiggstar69 21:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed the image to a shot of the Doctor kissing Martha. I still think that Image:Smith and Jones (Doctor Who).jpg is the best image — newspaper reports indicate that the Doctor explains the kiss away saying "It means nothing, it was just a genetic transfer." [2] Can we keep this image up until the episode airs? After it airs we can discuss what turns out to be central to the episode. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Morganstern

Reference to the name of the ER character played by William H. Macy of the same name? Bit tenous, thought I'd bring it up here. Oooh, someone needs to add the reference to the electricity chap, what he says about them etc. HornetMike 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the possible ER connection is too tenuous to include without a reference. The character is just as likely to be named for S. Morgenstern, the fictitious author of The Princess Bride.

And when you said "the electricity chap", did you mean Benjamin Franklin? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that would be him! My mind went blank. Thought the Morganstern thing was a too tenuous, but thought I might as well bring it up. Cheers, HornetMike 12:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Martha's theme + Melanie Pappenheim

Which actually is Martha's theme? The bit played when she sees the Doc take his tie off at the beginning? That sounds a bit like Cassandra's Waltz?--Rambutan (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's in the bit where she sees the Doctor and the TARDIS at night, although I'm not sure. Actually, on Doctor Who Confidential, they said it was like Rose's Theme but with something "new" added in. I'm not sure about it sounding like Cassandra's Waltz though. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Two sonic questions

1. Where did he get a new sonic screwdriver from? If he had a reserve in stock he wouldn't have made such a fuss about losing it.

2. Was it just me or was the dubbing on the BBC3 repeat a second or so out of time? It was like an old kung fu film. Totnesmartin 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

edit - actually it's my telly, so forget no 2... Totnesmartin 22:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On (1), it's one of those "where are the toilets on the Enterprise?" questions. You have to remember that it's just a work of fiction. The sonic screwdriver is destroyed when the plot requires more dramatic tension, and a new one appears when the exigencies of continuity demand it. Sorry I can't help you with (2); I haven't watched the BBC 3 repeat.--Tony Sidaway 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the blue prints of the Enterprise have always included toilets.--203.6.205.113 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no USS Enterprise. You were sold fakes. They lied to you. --Tony Sidaway 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One the Star Trek set, the toilets were next door to the stage and filming had to stop when anyone flushed. Totnesmartin 13:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with breaking the screwdriver was that he was stranded from the TARDIS and thus had no way of replacing it. mattbuck 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The doctor has replaced his screwdiver before, not on screen, but just like he has redecorated the TARDIS he has remodled the sonic screwdriver, so if he has had different looking sonic screwdrivers before then its not a far stretch to think that he can just replace them. Though to answer question (1) I'd probably be just a bit upset if 'I' broke somthing like my ipod and had to replace it, it would be expensive for him (since the only way he can get money is by using the sonic screwdriver to cheat cash machines) and he would probably have to go to some buisy planet 50,000,000 miles left off Clom.--Wiggstar69 14:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember in one of the first Doctor Who Confidentials, it mentioned that it's implied the doctor made his sonic screwdriver himself. mattbuck 15:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he runs down to Maplins to buy a new one, either. There's quite a lot about the sonic screwdriver in an article of that name that I found on some website or other. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

maybe he goes to a hardware store on the moon and asks the shopkeeper "where are the sonic screwdrivers?" "oh and i'll buy a laser spanner aswell"--Lerdthenerd 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, he's got a drawer full of 'em. Y'know, and some old ones that are the wrong color, some dead batteries, and an old VGA adapter that he can't use anymore... The drawer, of course, is bigger on the inside. Jeff (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Salt-guzzlers

The Man Trap, anyone? Totnesmartin 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Florence hardly looked like any of those pretty ladies the M-113 Creature shape-shifted into though. ^_^ I won't deny I did think very briefly of it but I don't think there is a connection really. --GracieLizzie 21:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, she probably looked prettier back then in the sixties. Incidentally, in Tomorrow is Yesterday, Kirk and Sulu appear to use a sonic screwdriver to open a locked door!) Totnesmartin 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A little bit prettier. The actress used to be a regular on Coronation Street, married to the character played by Bill "I'm not boring and I won a court case to prove it" Roache. Image:Kenvalerie.jpg --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Slabs like androids from Earthshock

That statement wasn't any more OR than any of the other uncited references.--Codenamecuckoo 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion. Pop it back if you think it belongs, no problem. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Audience figures

I've reverted some audience figures that were just added. They lacked a reference to a reliable source. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put the figures back with a reference to an article in the Daily Record, but a better source should be substituted as soon as possible. This one doesn't even give the provenance of the figures (presumably BARB). --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ALIAS Smith & Jones (probably not)

I don't think that the title is a reference to Alias Smith And Jones. The phrase Smith And Jones is so common, it comes up in all sorts of other contexts. See Google search with all references to "alias" "alas" and "Doctor who" removed - 112,000 hits. I think this should be removed as a reference. Anyone disagree? Harry Mudd 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a million miles from some of my recent thoughts on this. We should avoid cluttering episode-related articles with speculation of the "maybe it's a reference to X" variety in the absence of firm evidence (preferably one of the script-writers saying "yes, that's what I had in mind.") --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

However: Doctor_Who_(1996) "In the ambulance, Lee signs the paperwork that Bruce, the paramedic, gives him, putting the Doctor's name as "John Smith"."--Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor's John Smith alias is a long-established one. He uses it in Spearhead From Space (1970), which is also a Doctor-in-the-hospital story. It's the name he gives the Brigadier to satisfy UNIT paperwork requirements. I'm sure he's used it on other occasions between 1970 and the tv movie, but I don't recall the specifics. And of course he uses the alias again in School Reunion (2006). Before she catches on as to who he is, he and Sarah Jane specifically discuss the fact that the name he gives her when introducing himself is also the name her long-ago friend used sometimes. It's a common alias, though (hence the name of the Western tv series), which is why Chang Lee happened to hit on the same name in the ambulance. Because the names John and Smith are each extremely common in the English language, the combination is also very common, as the Doctor notes in School Reunion. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 21:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Borg Similarity?

The concept of the language being assimilated, and then saying 'you have been catalogued', as well as using the word 'designation' reminds me too much of the [[3]Borg] from star trek... perhaps a section on that similarity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.16.93 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't seem to be much of a reference to me. Apart from perhaps a couple of phrases (which are more likely to be either references to something else or the writers' own ideas) there's no apparent connection. No cyborgs, no cube ships, no multi-species assimilation... and there's no evidence from official sources as far as I'm aware. ~Ghelae 06:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

-Ah but those phrases i mentioned are all from the episode of dcotor who, and used in star trek by borg, perhaps it's just a coincidence, but too many coincidences perhaps... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.16.93 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't see what's too coincidental about it. Its just a frew shared phrases out of several hundred. And as for "assimilation", the only thing of that type in the episode was the blood assimilation, nothing robotic or cybernetic. And I never said that the quotes weren't from Star Trek as well. ~Ghelae 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who actually describes them to Martha as police for hire. They're not remotely like Borg. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to insult the episode, but it's all pretty standard cliche sci-fi stuff. I don't think it can really be pinned as copying anything, especially not the Borg. How many warrior clans for hire can you find in the countless leagues of sci-fi? Likewise the dialogue- aliens talking like that goes back to the hammy "Foolish human, the planet will be destroyed in 7 of your Earth minutes!" pulp stuff.--HellCat86 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well coincidentally, for some reason I was reminded of the Vogons, but the resemblance there is fairly superficial, too. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that the Borg are derivative of the Cybermen in the first place, since they predate them and share several characteristics. (The Avengers (TV series) had a somewhat similar baddie, the Cybernauts.) But there is nothing here that resonates as being parallel to Star Trek, let alone derivative. In this particular story, the similarities between the two shows strike me as extremely slight and non-notable. The Vogon similarity to the Judoon makes a little more sense, since both groups are officious and a little "thick". But it's still not so similar as to require a mention in the article, IMO. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

surely they're much more derivative of the judges of 2000AD's Judge Dredd... --Fmcams 02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot

Our plot summary currently seems to be about two-thousand words. This is too long to give a reasonable outline of the plot, because all kinds of detail gets in the way of the important points. It's really quite close to a scene-by-scene script outline.

Here's my go at a rewrite to emphasize the main plot elements. It's just over 600 words, and I'd get it smaller if I could do so without losing major plot elements:

The Royal Hope Hospital in London, where medical student Martha Jones works, is suddenly transported with all of its occupants to the surface of the moon. Martha reasons that she can still breathe, so there must be some kind of force field to hold the air in. She reasons that the strange occurrence is probably due to alien intervention. The Doctor, who had been incognito as a patient at the hospital, introduces himself and explains that he has been investigating since he noticed "plasma coils" installed in the building. Space ships arrive.

Meanwhile one of the patients, Florence Finnegan, overpowers the consultant, Mr Stoker with the help of her "Slabs", slave creatures, and sucks out his blood.

A large number of aliens come from the ship. They are humanoid with rhinoceros heads. The Doctor identifies them as The Judoon, a kind of mercenary police force. They start scanning each person, searching for a non-human. Resistance is met with summary execution.

The Doctor finds tries to use a hospital computer to scan the hospital administration database for unusual admissions, but it appears to have been wiped by the Judoon. When Martha goes to find Mr Stoker in answer to his query, she stumbles upon Mrs Finnegan sucking the last of his blood out, and is chased by one of the Slabs. The Doctor destroys it by modifying an X-Ray machine to increase its output to lethal levels. The Doctor explains that Mrs Finnegan is a shape-shifting plasmavore. She has sucked Mr Stoker's blood so that she will appear human to the Judoons' scanners.

The Doctor tries to find Mrs Finnegan before she can be scanned, but he is too late. The Judoon scan the Doctor and, finding that he is non-human, try to execute him. He escapes with Martha. He kisses her. They part. When the Judoon find Martha they scan her and, because of the kiss, they find that she has non-human traces.

The force field is leaking air and some patients are starting to suffer. Hospital staff start using hospital oxygen supplies to help them.

The Doctor tracks Florence Finnegan down in an MRI room. He pretends to be a mystified human, and she has a Slab restrain him, then she obligingly tells him that she is modifying the MRI to overload it, causing the brains of all living things on the moon and the half of earth facing the moon to be fried.

The Doctor tells her the Judoon are doing secondary scans. To evade detection again, Mrs Finnegan sucks The Doctor's blood, still believing him to be human. He collapses and appears to die.

Martha ensures that Mrs Finnegan is scanned. She shows as non-human and is apprehended and executed for the murder of "the child princess of Patrivolde Regency Nine." The MRI is still approaching critical state and the oxygen levels are very low.

Martha revives the Doctor using CPR on both hearts. He wakes up in the nick of time and unplugs the MRI. Martha collapses from lack of oxygen. As the Judoon leave the Doctor begs them to save the humans in the hospital. The hospital is abruptly returned to earth. Martha sees the Doctor disappear into a blue box (the TARDIS) which then disappears while she is distracted.

Martha attends her brother's birthday party, but it breaks down into a family row. She notices The Doctor and follows him. He goes to his TARDIS. There follows a fairly lengthy introduction scene in which the Doctor explains about himself, about his former companions, including Rose. As the episode closes he agrees to take her, but not as a replacement for Rose, but just on a single trip as thanks for saving his life.

--Tony Sidaway 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That version of the plot is good, but we have to astablish what points are 'important' and which are not, to be honest I prefer the current version due to its more in depth detail, in my opinion more is not always a bad thing. For exaple I would add in things like the sonic screwdriver moment.--Wiggstar69 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I did have a mention of the sonic screwdriver's destruction, but decided to remove it because the Doctor makes a new one. The only reason for the screwdriver's destruction is to increase the dramatic tension, so I regard this as a minor plot detail. --Tony Sidaway 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but somtimes its the 'minor plot detail' like we are seeing in the article at the moment that makes it interesting, it doesn't look like the article has too much detail at the moment, it just giving information on what happened in the episode. --Wiggstar69 11:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the plot summary currently in the article is "interesting", except to people who are committed fans of Doctor Who. The average reader and occasional viewer encountering that jumble will simply pass over it because it's long and it's a mess.

On the subject of the abridgement, these are the points I've left out:

• Martha's journey to work
• The localised rain, the static electricity
• The morning phone calls
• The collision with the Slab.
• Mr Stoker's rounds, including Mr Smith and Mrs Finnegan
• All phone calls
• Detailed personal discussion between Martha and the Doctor
• The destruction of the sonic screwdriver, and the appearance of the new one.
• The mysterious first encounter with The Doctor
• Mrs Finnegan's straw
• Details of Martha's family affairs
• Details of the discussion between Martha and the Doctor at the end of the episode.
• The Doctor's time-travel demonstration.

I don't think that's bad for a saving of 1400 words. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are forgetting is that most people reading this artical will be doctor who fans, I couldn't imagine somone who didn't know anything about doctor who would end on this artical about a particular episode too often.

if I was you I would include:

• Martha's journey to work (they tie removal incident included)
• A mention of the fact she is on the phone to different family members (no in depth writing)
• The localised rain, the static electricity (and call between her and her sister)
• The collision with the Slab
• Mr Stoker's rounds, including Mr Smith and Mrs Finnegan
• The destruction of the sonic screwdriver, and the appearance of the new one
• Mrs Finnegan's straw
• The Doctor's time-travel demonstration

I think this information is interesting and needs a place in the artical to give a better decription of the episode and the way you are decribing it, it seems as if the episode starts in the hospital.--Wiggstar69 12:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Those items are clearly all of minor significance in the plot. They're all there either for the purposes of incidental humor or exposition.

Wikipedia isn't for the fan, but for the general reader. Producing long, almost unreadable, poorly organised plot summaries "because the fans like it that way" is not really consistent with what Wikipedia is about. --Tony Sidaway 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you count all the things you are pointing out as 'minor significance' then most of the episode will not be written down in the artical, for example, like I said before, in your version of the Plot the whole story starts in the Hospital and things like the whole tie incident never took place.

I am not proposing making it for the fan I am just saying we don't have to worry about making it too long because the audience who will be reading it will generally not mind reading it a bit longer to get more information, the people who would get bord of it wouldn't be reading it in the first place.--Wiggstar69 14:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly correct. The plot summary should be brief and stick to the essentials of the plot. Most of the fifty minute episode should be omitted, because it's chit-chat, humor, and the necessary exposition and setups to enable the viewer to understand what is happening.

It isn't that the tie incident doesn't take place, just that it's a very minor, incidental thing. In the context of the show, it's a MacGuffin that serves to draw the viewer in, and the explanation of the incident at the end works as a bit of cheeky humor.

I don't think it's right to write off most of the potential readership of this article, and assume that the only people who read it will share your own taste for long, detailed discussions. We have to write for the general reader. Even our articles on physics are written so as to be accessible to the general reader. --Tony Sidaway 14:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But it seems as if you are taking away so much detail its not the same episode any more, also you can't say that articals on Physics arn't going to be long and detailed.--Wiggstar69 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "it's not the same episode any more." If you mean that it isn't a scene-by-scene description of the episode, you're absolutely right, but that's not what a plot summary is supposed to be.

It's true that physics articles are long and detailed, but that doesn't mean that we accept poorly written, confusing articles littered with irrelevant detail. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now thats where I agree with you, the artical has been badly written, I think we should keep the same detail but and improve the way it has been writen, the only reason this artical is poorly written is because a number of people wrote it. If we culd re-write it with the same detail but a single person writes it with meret then this would be in canon with every other artical for Doctor Who episodes (which are predominently detailed and well writen).--Wiggstar69 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree that a single person should write the plot, but that's unfortunately not how Wikipedia works.--Rambutan (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, I don't volunteer as the "sole person" to write the plot summary, I know Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I gave an example of above, my own attempt to summarise the plot. In my opinion it has the benefit of being well written and brief. I think we should all aim, as editors, for both objectives. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of points I thought might be worth saying:

1. You might not actually need to have one (or even a few) write the plot, as it may be possible for plenty of people to write the plot (which it seems unlikely you'll be able to stop unless you have the page protected) but then one person makes a few changes to make it better-written and flow more, or something like that.
2. I agree it could be shorter. But some of the sentances in the version given at the top of this section seem a bit blunt. If you get what I mean. Which I'm not even sure I do. But something like I'm trying to make this second comment like. Simply to show what I mean. If you read it out in your head, then it sounds a bit odd. So I think some detail is good. However there are some excessive details in the plot.

Ghelae 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I didn't just jump in and replace the existing plot summary is that it's important to discuss very large changes like this. Someone who did that would almost certainly have rubbed just about everybody up the wrong way.

I still think the plot summary should be rewritten to be reasonably brief, although I don't have any major objection to more detail being added. Perhaps now that we have a general agreement that the article should have a better plot summary, somebody else might like to try rewriting it. --Tony Sidaway 11:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Hill

Someone added this to the "Production" section:

• Two clips from this episode featured on Harry Hill's TV Burp broadcast on Saturday 7th April 2007, showing the Judoon Leader (who he said was Jackie Stalone) removing his helmet in the hospital for the first time and a Slab chasing the Doctor and Martha down a corridor (saying that he was an angry pizza delivery man).

The note really doesn't seem to have anything to do with this production. Harry Hill takes clips and makes funny comments about them, that's it. I've removed this note. --Tony Sidaway 09:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Patrivolde Regency Nine"

I've removed the reference to the name of the child princess's planet for now. There are (to my knowledge at least) no authoritative sources for the spelling of the planet's name. Various viewers seem to have listened to the sound track and come up with different spellings for it. If the name of the planet ever becomes significant, it will feature in authoritative printed sources, but for now we should be aware of our position as the most widely consulted reference source in the world, ever, and avoid giving information of unknown quality. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone has added "Progal Regency Nine". I've removed that and inserted a html comment asking editors not to insert the name of the planet unless they have a reliable reference for the spelling. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr Who Adventures 28 has it down as Padrivole Regency Nine, is that a sufficent source?

I don't know. Who publishes it and what source do they use? If they have access to the writer's script of the shooting script that should be enough. Thanks for the sleuthing. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The offical online script [4] has it as Padrivole Regency Nine.--Rambutan (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you like to change the reference to "a child princess" to "The Child Princess of Padrivole Regency Nine" and source it to that script? I think the term also shows up on some other Whovian (is that a word?) pages, but I can't remember which. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh here it is: List_of_Doctor_Who_villains#Florence_Finnegan. If you fix and source this one you should fix and source that one. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned one way or another; I was just trying to give The authoritative source! :-)--Rambutan (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Various minor removals

In Continuity:

• David Tennant says in Doctor Who Confidential that he feels some time has passed since The Runaway Bride. This is confirmed when the doctor says he spent the last 15 years as a postman.

I've removed the last sentence (which I have italicised above) because he is lying to Mrs Finnegan (not to mention that it's part of the show's humor).

In Outside references:

• The surgeon's name is Mr B. Stoker. He was killed by having his blood drained. This may be a reference to Bram Stoker, the author of Dracula. The name Florence Finnegan may also be a reference to Florence Balcombe, Bram Stoker's wife.

Again I've removed the last sentence, italicised above. The Stoker reference is arguable, but the Florence Balcombe speculation is going too far.

In References to other stories:

• The Doctor mentions "liking banana," a reference to The Girl in the Fireplace and The Doctor Dances.

Liking banana really isn't that unusual. Every time the Doctor expresses a liking for something, it isn't an implied reference to every single other episode in which he has said much the same thing. --Tony Sidaway 06:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of these removals except the banana one which I definitely think is a running joke. --GracieLizzie 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the banana references seemed to start in The Doctor Dances as an odd joke, and I remember one part when the Doctor warned Jack Harkness not to drop the banana, and the reply was that a banana is a "good source of potassium". So it seems (at least to me and, apparently, GracieLizzie) that it is a running gag. Then again, it's still possible it isn't. ~ Ghelae 15:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I discussed this with another editor and conceded that it's basically a running gag. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Time of episode

Is it safe to say that this episode was before The runaway bride. Here are my reasons for beliving this:

• When martha is talking about the various alien encounters, she makes no reference to the Webstar ship.
• Martha's canocical blog on the internet, claims that the events in smith and jones happened on the day the episode aired(31st March 2007). But the runaway bride happened on christmas 2007.
• Martha, although this is discovered in the next episode, has not yet read The Deathly Hallows which means this episode is set Before July 2007.82.39.162.160 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if not having read a certain book yet can help date an episode. Maybe she's waiting for the paperback - she's a student after all, and students don't spend precious beer money on hardbacks. Totnesmartin 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's after Runaway Bride for the Doctor but before it for Martha - although I wouldn't trust the Harry Potter reference - it could simply be miscontinuity. I also doubt it can be as early as March. School Reunion takes place in January [[5]]

Love and Monsters takes after this (Jackie refers to Micky leaving - and no one mentions the Ghosts), and then the Ghosts arrive 2 months before Army of Ghosts, which is before this episode. That places this story in May at the earliest. StuartDD 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember the Zygon gambit with the Loch Ness Monster, or the Yetis in the Underground? [Ace is confused] Your species has the most amazing capacity for self-deception, matched only by it's ingenuity when trying to destroy itself.

— Seventh Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks

Point in hand demonstrated magnificently by Donna in The Runaway Bride. Not to mention that the various alien encounters in the several years have been written off as drugs in the water. We can't be sure on which year it's in, though hopefully it'll be settled in The Lazarus Experiment. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Stig

Anyone notice the striking resemblense of the Slabs with the Black Stig? I might have heard Jeremy Clarkson say that The Stig may be alien, but I can't find a quote. --Edokter (Talk) 11:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that was in reference to the White Stig, but I guess they are the same race. (!) Gwinva 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'Time Tunnel' continuity error?

Why, at the end of the episode, does the TARDIS travel through a blue 'time tunnel', which is usually for the future, when the next episode is set in the past, e.g. 1599, in which case normally a red 'time tunnel' would be used? Continuity error methinks? --Riche 15:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not according to TARDISODE which offers the same colour scheme as this episode.--OZOO (vote saxon) 11:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just special effects and it's a fictional programme. He isn't really going into the future or the past, so the color of the backdrop is immaterial. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue is past and red is forward. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Blue is used when the characters are going into the past and red is used when they are going into the future 86.156.47.194 11:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Except in this case (and possibly others) where blue was used and the TARDIS apparently travelled into the past. Beware of relying on such undocumented "rules". --Tony Sidaway 11:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Another plot rewrite

This one is pretty radical, but it's far better supported by Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF) guideline which recommends writing from an encyclopedia, "out-of-universe" standpoint. I don't quite achieve that because there aren't a lot of external sources on this yet, but it's a start:

This is an introduction to Martha Jones, who becomes the Doctor's new companion following the departure of Rose in Doomsday. The Doctor is incognito in a London hospital, pretending to be a patient, to investigate the appearance of plasma coils on the hospital. Martha happens to be a particularly astute medical student.

The scenario is that a brutal mercenary police force, the rhinoceros-like Judoon, who have no juridiction on earth, engineer the transport of the hospital to the moon in order to apprehend and execute Florence Finnegan, a shapeshifting bloodsucker (a "plasmavore"). Mrs Finnegan attempts to evade capture by sucking the blood of humans, but is cleverly tricked into sucking the Doctor's blood, believing him to be human. He collapses, apparently dead. She is apprehended by the Judoon, pointed out by Martha, and identified as non-human and executed by the Judoon for the murder of a child princess.

Meanwhile before expiring the bloodsucker has modified a MRI scanner to make it destroy all intelligent life on the moon and on the half of earth facing the moon. Martha revives the doctor and he turns off the scanner. Oxygen levels are low and the occupants of the hospital are near death, but as they depart the Judoon return the hospital safely to earth.

Martha attends her brother's birthday party, but it breaks down into a family row. She notices The Doctor and follows him. He goes to his TARDIS. There follows a fairly lengthy introduction scene in which the Doctor explains about himself, about his former companions, including Rose Tyler. As the episode closes he agrees to take her, but not as a replacement for Rose, but just on a single trip as thanks for saving his life.

In this episode, Martha's powers of observation and deduction are showcased: when the hospital is on the moon she realises that there must be some kind of force field keeping the air in, for the windows are not well enough sealed to stop the air escaping fast. She also observes, before the crisis, that the Doctor has two hearts, and remembers to perform CPR on both of them when she needs to revive him.

--Tony Sidaway 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a peep at my comment here first, please?--Rambutan (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really mind the plot summery but its very different from that of all the old series and rather then being a plot it holds facts about the episode, are you sure this should take place this plot summery and others like it?--Wiggstar69 14:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Plot

The Plot contains stuff that isn't even in the plot, for example how is it part of the plot that this is Martha Jones first episode? It is already stated elsewhere on the page, also it doesn't tell the plot as it would be watched (which every other plot listing does) for exapmle sentences start with "in this episode..." instead of listing all the major events that happen in order. The plot before this one was too long and badly written, but this plot is a bit too short and even in the space it does use up it gives very little information about the episode. I suggest you get rid of pointless sentences like introducing Martha personally as a charicter inside the plot, getting rid introductions to almost every paragraph and and explaining more of the major events in the episode. (Also I'm sorry if this sound like I'm having a go at you). ~ Wiggstar69 09:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you're having a go: I quite agree. However, I'm too busy at the moment with my revision. However, you could make more use of apostrophes and correct spelling in your comments.--Rambutan (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarity to Trading Futures?

I do recall a race called Onihr, although they were planning an alien invasion... Should the similarity in appearance be included? DrWho42 08:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope!--Rambutan (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Billie Piper

In the video for Billie Piper's hit "Because we want to", there's a CG nightclub bouncer rhino that looks very much like a Judoon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.92.164 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RHT ???

what is RHT, it appears on the building , what does it mean, please? T saston (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The hospital is the Royal Hope. RHT is probably Royal Hope Trust -- the body that adminsterates the hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.147.81 (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use image removal

I'm removing Image:Smith and Jones.jpg from this article due to failure to meet requirements of WP:NFCC #8. In particular, two people kissing each other is already described in the text of the article, "The Doctor performs a "genetic transfer" - kissing Martha to obtain human DNA". Adding a fair use image does nothing to add understanding of the plot, and its removal is not a detriment to the reader's understanding. Two people kissing each other is hardly unique, and it's not like we can see the genes climbing from one mouth to the other. There's nothing of value in this picture not covered by the text of the article.

I strongly encourage those of you who are regulars at this article from knee-jerk reverts of this action. The burden of justification for an image lies with the people who want to use the fair use image. This project does not readily accept fair use images, and such images must jump through considerable hoops to be acceptable here. In this case, it is blatantly clear that the image brings nothing to the article that text does not and can not. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded a different image, one that was on the article for years, but was removed by user request. That means your original point above no longer stands, and has to be examined by it's own merit. Removing one image does not give you the go-ehead to summerlarly remove any subsequent image. If you still feel the image fails NFCC, take the matter to fair-use review. — Edokter • Talk • 14:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the image for reasons described below. Note that the non-presence of fair use images is the default case here, and you have to provide the justification for why this image must be here to pass our policy at WP:NFCC. This has not been done. The image is against policy. I appreciate your efforts to find a different image, but this image suffers even more problems than the last image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've just now also removed Image:Doctor Who Smith and Jones.jpg from the article. The setting of the image isn't even referenced in the plot summary. After 1400+ edits to this article, if this scene isn't even mentioned in the plot it's hard to justify the existence of the image. Certainly it would have been covered already. The image is superfluous and decorative. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please state which rule of NFCC this image fails? Also, please describe the Judoon to me, as that is one of the purposes this image serves, and cannot be adequately described by words. I also fail to see how the "setting" is relevant; the caption describes an "event", not a setting". — Edokter • Talk • 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Big grey leathery animally things with white shiny ivory horny things, leather strippy skirty things, big black booty things, red whirry penny things, and big black round helmetty things" - how's that :D Of course, the image should stay! —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The event is not described in the plot, and hasn't been described in the plot in more than 1400 edits to this article. That being the case, this image clearly fails WP:NFCC #8 where it says "Non-free content is used only if ... its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The Judoon are already described at List_of_Doctor_Who_monsters_and_aliens#Judoon. This image doesn't do anything to enhance the reader's understanding of the plot, and it's ommission is not detrimental either. The physical appearance of the Judoon simply is not a plot factor. The scene being described is not described in the plot summary, nor has it in over 1400 edits (thus I certainly hope someone doesn't retroactively add commentary on the scene, to make an appearance of jumping through this hoop, which was already attempted with an earlier image). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But the article's not just about the plot. It's about the production, conception and so on as well... and the physical appearance is very much related to those. That said, I'll try to fix the plot synopsis so as to make the image invaluable. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly what I feared. Now the article is going to be retrofitted to make the image supposedly acceptable. If this article existed for 1400+ edits without having any mention of the physical appearance of the Judoon, it's a serious stretch to think it must have an image to describe their physical appearance. Please don't do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ah, I see I'm too late [6]. Now you're adding something to the article that is a minor footnote to the episode in order to justify the image. This is pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I was about to say the same; you seem to be hung stuck on the plot. The image serves more then one purpose: describe an element of the plot and illustrating one of the antagonists. And adding the description retroactively is defenitely not 'illegal' in any way, especially if it improves the article. — Edokter • Talk • 15:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I know it's pointless, but I couldn't think of how to fit a decimal point into it :-( Any suggestions are welcome. And thanks for the diff, by the way, I'd already forgotten that I typed that :D —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Illustrative purposes alone are not enough. Please see WP:NFC which notes that the use of such images should be for critical commentary. That's not happening here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit of a misnomer... we can't be "critical"; that would be POV. I'm sorry, but I feel this is going nowhere. NFCC is too subjective, that is why I recommended WP:FUR in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Critical" exists because it's how fair use law tends to be written/discussed. In this context, you can read it (more or less) as 'discussion' regarding the image itself, in conjunction with all the other aspects of WP:NFCC requirements, such as significance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I also note that "yomp" and "yomping" are not referred to in several non-wikipedia references to this episode tv.combuddytv.comaintitcool.com and even the show's broadcaster themselves at [7]. Boy "yomping" seems awfully important to this episode that we absolutely must have an image of a Judoon in order to understand what yomping is, since without understanding yomping we'd be at a serious detriment to understand this episode. I.e., this image still clearly fails WP:NFCC #8 even with the added attempted retrofit. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference to DooM?

After watching episode The Impossible Planet I began looking out for DooM references inside Doctor Who. While watching "Smith and Jones" I noticed something odd.
This is a screen cap of the Plasmavore operating the MRI instrumentation: http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/3741/drwho03x01smithandjones.jpg
The letters on the instrument (left of the Plasmavore's hand) spell out UAC and the symbol representing the "A" closely resembles the UAC symbol! Seems too much to be a coincidence. --ZeframCochrane (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. (To my eye, it looks more like the radiation symbol, but then I'm not very familiar with Doom.) Either way, however, unless you can find a reliable source making the comparison, it's original research and can't be mentioned in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also found this picture of a prop from the DooM movie, with an identical disposition of letters and symbols, even the typeface for the U and C appears the same:
http://www.yourprops.com/view_item.php?movie_prop=5869
Also, notice how in the standard symbol for radiations, the three "fans" diverge from the center to become larger on the outside, while in the UAC symbol (both the original one and the one in the screencap) the fans converge to become truncated triangles on the outside. Here's a magnified version of the screencap, with and without the fans highlighted:
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7863/uachigh2.jpg
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/1442/uacnoh.jpg
The only standard symbol I see is the Biohazard symbol on the right of the UAC one. But you're right, it does take a trained eye to spot it. The kind of eye you get only after several full-immersion sessions of DooM (and sequels). --ZeframCochrane (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was that unless the connection has been mentioned somewhere else — specifically, in a source which Wikipedia classifies as reliable — we can't mention it in the article, if that's what you were suggesting. If you were just mentioning it for the sake of chat, I should remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. I recommend The Doctor Who Forum. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat was not my objective, no: I am familiar with the WP:FORUM policy. As for the original research problem, the reference to DooM seems so obvious to me now that it appears to be original research as much as it is original research that the water is wet. I'd also like to point out the fact that even the reference to DooM in "The Impossible Planet" is unsourced. Both cases seems so obvious to the trained eye (and ear) that seem to fall out of the "original research" bounds. In any case, it would appear that if the original research policy were to be applied thoroughly even in this situation, even the reference in The Impossible Planet should be removed, being unsourced. And this would result in an overall loss of quality, considering that both references are considerably interesting. --ZeframCochrane (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're right — the reference in "The Impossible Planet" should probably go too. There's a lot of unsourced speculation in our articles, and ideally it should all be either sourced or purged. I've added {{cn}} tags to the relevant bits of "The Impossible Planet", to give other editors a chance to find sources. But that doesn't mean that we should add unsourced material here. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Little Shops

The Doctor voices his approval of the hospital shop, a reference to "New Earth".

The Doctor seems to have a thing for "little shops". I've noticed several mentions of this affinity of his, e.g., "Silence in the Library" Jeff (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the Hale and Pace influence. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Judoon or Judoons?

So, what's plural for "Judoon"? Omitting the "s" feels more comfortable, the noun and adjective being the same, sort of like "French". We don't say "the Frenches" when talking about several French people. Similarly, "Irish", or even "British"; compare/contrast "American/Americans" or "Mexican/Mexicans".Jeff (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor says that they're the Judoon, as opposes to "he's" a Judoon. (Compare "they're the Daleks" and "they're the Cybermen") DonQuixote (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"A platoon of Judoon" sounds like a plural to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 09:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Smith and Jones (Doctor Who)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

;Quality Downgraded to C-Class, as there were not many references. The page does have a lot of content, though. Assessed by Joshua Issac (talk) at 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)