Talk:The End of Time/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Master?

Why are references 4 and 5 considered reliable enough to tell us that John Simm is in this, but not reliable enough to say that it is The Master? I know RTD has avoided saying that he is - but is wouldn't be the first time he's lied. 81.157.236.16 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of those sources only report that he was spotted filming, they don't report any confirmation that he is playing the Master. If we're going to change this in any way, it should be to remove Simm from the article entirely, not to stretch the sketchy sources we have any further. Russell T Davies' past actions are irrelevant in all this. Maccy69 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maccy is right. The sources are not saying he was spotted filming as the Master, at most that he previously played the Master. SoWhy 12:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC has confirmed that John Simm will return as the Master for the 2009 Christmas specials, so he is definatly back, he's just sporting a new look. Dark Warrior D (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion reason

This page should be deleted because an article for the same subject was added before and it was deleted. It has been recreated and i think thas is slightly unpolite. I would like this article to be deleted BF153 (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumstances change rapidly as information becomes available. The article that was deleted turned into a redirect had no sourced information, whereas this article has tons of sources. Deletion is not likely. — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really want this deleted then you need to submit an AfD. I will point out, though, that this article is properly sourced, has an appropriate title and conforms to the Manual of Style for the Doctor Who WikiProject - all qualities that your article lacked. If you'd joined in the discussion here before creating your article, you'd have saved yourself a lot of trouble. I do find it a bit odd that you want this article deleted when you thought creating one in the first place was a good idea - is this about helping to build an encyclopedia or all about you? Maccy69 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this illustrates a problem with the way some users approach AfD. AfD should be about whether an article has the potential to meet Wikipedia's standards, not whether it currently does. The biggest problem with the article in its former incarnation was that it was not properly sourced; however, I noted several sources in the AfD which could have been used to source the article. WP:AFD says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." It also says, "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." But instead of improving the earlier version of the article, some editors (and the administrator who improperly closed the discussion with a speedy deletion) were too ready to delete the article completely. This sort of behavior doesn't reflect well on us, and turns new editors off from contributing to Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't supposed to be my point, but I don't think I communicated very well. The point I was trying to make was that the article, as written, would have been completed re-written, re-formatted and had its title changed - which isn't very different to what what has actually happened. Considering that, it just seemed a bit odd to for the editor request that this article be deleted. I can't speak for other editors, but voted delete in the AfD because I didn't think there was enough reliable information out there to justify a single article so soon. You've proven me wrong on that. Maccy69 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment was aimed more generally, not at you specifically, Maccy. You're right that the end result in terms of the article content is about the same; however, there is an emotional difference for the well-intentioned newbie who tried to start the article and was shot down. I just think that it's more encouraging for a new editor to see an article they start blossom into something fully cited and encylopedic, rather than having it shot down at AFD and replaced a few days later. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame that you hadn't got your sandbox article together before the AfD was closed. If you'd edited the original then I'm sure people would have voted to move it. Not that you should have rushed to do this, but it's unfortunate that things developed the way they did. I definitely think the AfD should have been allowed to run its course as well, definitely not a speedy deletion as far as I can work out. I hope that BF153 doesn't take it too much to heart. Maccy69 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Den of Geek reliable?

I've just reverted this edit adding David Harewood as Joshua Naismith. The source was Den of Geek, which I think counts as a self published source. However, it is published by Dennis Publishing (see here) and its review is included in the critical response section of Planet of the Dead. What do others think? I won't revert this again, but I think we should reach a consensus before re-adding it. Note also that the article only confirms David Harewood, not the character's name. Maccy69 (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I should also point out, as the person who made the original edit, a few things: David Harewood was seen on the cover of a set prop which is a book by the fictional character Joshua Naismith entitled "Fighting the Future". I will try to find the image, but it has been seen lots on set, including in the hands of the Doctor. The Expeditioners ^-talk- 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but unless a reliable source reports the name, we can't include it. I think you'll find that a lot of the editors here (me and Josiah Rowe at the very least) are also members of the Doctor Who Forum and have seen all the set photos that these stories are based on. However, we aren't a news organisation breaking a story - we can only report what other reliable third-party sources have reported. I know he's in the specials and playing Joshua Naismith - but that's not a verifiable piece of information, as things stand. Maccy69 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also even if the book cover and the actor were both shown in photographs by a reliable source, it would be original research to link the two. Maccy69 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the source noted that the book appeared to be written by Harewood's character. I'm undecided on whether Den of Geek is a reliable source, but it may be relevant that it appears to be used as a reference in 261 Wikipedia articles. It would probably be good to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Incidentally, the Den of Geek article mentions that Harewood confirmed that he would be in this story on Jonathan Ross's radio show. If we can confirm that, the radio programme could be used as an RS to confirm his presence in the story, if not his role. However, I can't find "back issues" of Ross's radio show, as a podcast or anything else — does anyone know whether they're available anywhere? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The early word at WP:RSN is that Den of Geek is a reliable source, so I'll restore the entry (though not the character name). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. There's could well be something on Den of Geek for all the stuff that people keep trying to add - although I think it's only Jacqueline King is the only person we don't have now. Any others? Maccy69 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacqueline King reference Maccy69 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this also means both Billie Piper and Camille Coduri cannot be added to the list until Den of Geek gets around to talking about them? 80.177.217.162 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or io9 - basically anybody with a professional reputation to stake on the truth of what they say, who is reporting something as fact and not rumour. There has to be a way for the reader of the article to check out our sources and to know that they're reliable. Maccy69 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

<< I'd generally be inclined to count io9 and DenofGeek as reliable sources. Sure, they're self-published, but then so is The Times to that extent. They seem to be professional organisations, and lots of articles have them as decent references. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice

What are people's thoughts on including a Editnotice for this article requesting that users refrain from speculating and not use unreliable sources? I've had to revert two users in the past hour for this. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Especially as more and more guest stars are likely to be spotted filming (Claire Bloom, last night, for example). Maccy69 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can someone please create a editnotice for this article, warning people not to list cast members without a reliable source? It's seven months until transmission and we're getting three or four unsourced additions per day, regardless of current warnings in the article. Please and thank you :) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this as well, for what it's worth... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, propose a specific wording. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please fill in the blanks and reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

 Done — Edokter • Talk • 11:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Verity Newman

I think it's obvious that this a reference/ode to founding producer Verity Lambert, and should perhaps be included in the details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.1.101 (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable source else it's original research Edgepedia (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's there at the start of Filming. Edgepedia (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Claire Bloom as the Doctor's mother?

A couple of sources we are using for people appearing in the specials also include the assertion that Claire Bloom will be playing the Doctor's mother. They are The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail. The origin for both of these is the Richard Kay column in The Daily Mail. The only thing that this seems to confirm and source (from her manager) is that she is appearing (as we know from various set reports), not who she is playing. All Kay has to say is "Her invitation to join the cast of one of TV's most enduring institutions has been kept a closely guarded secret, but I understand she will be seen playing the intergalactic Time Lord's mother." That doesn't strike me as strong enough to include in this article (he's just reporting a rumour) - and I've added a note to this effect to the article. Do people agree with this? Or do you think we should mention it? Maccy69 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, in any sense of the phrase, unless it is reporting on actual, factual events (so the report of Billie Piper filming is OK, because it happened, there's photographic evidence etc.) But their "insider stories" are drivelly, frequently untrue, and not verifiable. That's my rule of thumb, anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was pretty much my thinking. Accordingly, I've also edited the Claire Bloom article. Maccy69 (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail may not have a red logo, but it's still a red top style tabloid, even if it does pretend to be a high brow paper. The only good proof is photographs (which only prove an actor is present, not their role) or a statement from cast, crew, or the BBC. Digifiend (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Billie and Camille were only in the cast list

For some reason, Camille Coduri and Billie Piper were in the cast list, but not named in the main article. I've added that, someone please feel free to add the ref links - as well as the ones already mentioned, there are more photos of Billie with David Tennant in today's News of the World - http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/310009/David-Tennant-amp-Billie-Piper-reunited-on-set-of-Doctor-Who-for-Xmas-Special.html Digifiend (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already added the reference to the main text. The filming section really needs updating as well - and the News of the World article could be usefully referenced there as well, I think. I might have a go later on. Maccy69 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

river song

why has nobody mentioned river song? int the episode "the library" she mentioned that the current doctor is the earlyest doctor she knows, therefore the tenth doctor must meet her some time during these episodes. right? --Ratstail91 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor has lots of adventures we don't see. His later/earlier meetings with River Song may be among these. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

During a Children in Need excert - The Doctor mentioned a long detour before landing. River Song could also be during this period 86.167.139.48 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Split pages

After the airing of these episodes, will another page be created for the final special? After all they are separate episodes.--Elliethomson (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I imagine there'll be separate pages as soon as we have titles (ie before the episodes air), although that may make the cast listing a bit tricky (as there are currently no reliable sources of information about who is in which episode). There'll definitely be two articles by the time the casts are confirmed, though, which will also be in advance of the airdates. Maccy69 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Jane/Luke

I may be missing something here, but who's to say the scenes with Tennant/Sladen/Knight that have been seen are not part of the forthcoming Doctor-featuring SJA 2-parter? In other words, do we have any confirmation that Sarah Jane and Luke are in these episodes? U-Mos (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The source says they were filming for Doctor Who, it's verifiability not truth that we're aiming for here. On the same basis, I've just reverted your removal of Matt Smith (see the edit summary for more). Maccy69 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Informally, as well, we know from set reports that this was part of a Doctor Who filming block and was only a brief scene. David Tennant is reported as having a major role in the two-part SJA story, that requires more than one day's filming. So, even though it's not up to us to say so, it's likely that the source has it right. This disclaimer at the top of the article makes it clear that things can change also, not everything that is shot will necessarily make it into the final version. Maccy69 (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Dalton

Is this image enough to at least list Dalton as a cast member? io9 magnius (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I suppose it is. whoniverse93 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptic. It's a low-res image, possibly photoshopped, and io9.com is not the best of sources. — Edokter • Talk • 22:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look photoshopped to me. The combing suggests it's from a video of some sort. Pdb781 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Edokter's assertion that io9 is not a reliable source. I thought that we had been treating it as such for a while now; there are several io9 links in this article. That said, rather than interpreting whether the photograph is genuine or not, I think the appropriate course of action is to keep Dalton out of the infobox, but insert a neutrally worded sentence noting the report and photograph in the "filming" section (or "casting", once that section is added). I propose something like this:

The science fiction website io9 published a photograph showing Tennant alongside Simm and Timothy Dalton, with Dalton apparently dressed in Time Lord robes. Rumors of Dalton's involvement in the specials had previously appeared in British tabloids.

This allows us to acknowledge that a generally reliable source (io9) has indicated, with purported photographic evidence, that Dalton will be appearing, but stops short of the article claiming that he will be appearing in the episode. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus, sometimes pedantics on this article are ridiculous. You can't just pick and choose when io9 is reliable, it either is or it isn't..make up your minds! We have a wealth of sources that state that Dalton has been cast, and now photographic evidence (that doesn't look the least bit photoshopped, unless you are in denial) of him in costume and on set. All in all, the evidence is strong enough to state that he is in the Doctor Who Christmas special (in my own opinion of course). With that picture being releeased, I would expect an official announcement by the beeb within a few of days...then hopefully we can list him and move on... magnius (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. Any hedging on my part about whether io9 is reliable was just a polite response to Edokter's edit summary. So, would anyone object to the proposed text above? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposed text looks very good. I do tend to regard io9 as a reliable source, since it's a semi-professional organisation. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 07:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Right then; in the absence of objection, I'll add it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

With all the vandalism, why don't we request page protection? This page requires extensive vandal reverting.  Cargoking  talk  12:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple admins (like me) have this article watchlisted and I am sure they will apply protection when needed. But currently the protection policy does not allow a protection for this article since activity levels are fairly low and if this were requested at RFPP at the moment, I think it will be declined for sure. Don't panic, it's under control. :-) Regards SoWhy 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumor Notes

People don't seem to have a problem with specific instructions about rumors in the notes. Yet certain rumors they don't have a problem with while others they immediatly reverse. Nobody seems to have a problem with rumors in the notes so why are some removed?--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The "notes" (I preseume you mean the bits in between the <!-- and --> are hidden; they're there to remind editors not to add rumours. It's difficult to explain to editors what not to add without specifying it! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The End of Time

A trailer was shown at SDCC. Apparently the title is "The End of Time". MultipleTom (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It might not be the title but like the trailer for 'The Next Doctor', which said "The Return of the Cybermen". It could just be a teaser. Whoniverse93 talk? 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, far too early to declare that as the title. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is definitly not the title. magnius (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be sensible to make the more accurate declaration, "it is not definitely the title". The "Water of Mars" trailer used the title for that story, and "the End of Time" seems a bit too abstract for a tease line. MultipleTom (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RTD though, said the title would be four words long.  Cargoking  talk  21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Even still, it's far too early to say it is definitely the title. Only when it is actually confirmed that it should be entered. Whoniverse93 talk? 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If (and that is a big if) that is the title, I would expect a press release tomorrow (or certainly by the end of the week). The trailer could end up on the official site, but unless that is accompanied with a statement saying that "The End of Time" is the title, it still cannot be considered confirmation. magnius (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We have 'till December…  Cargoking  talk  21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We can just state facts. We don't know the title. But we know that the tag line at the end of the trailer shown at Comic-Con 2009 was The End of Time. Just say that. We can also provide a brief description of the trailer : voiceover ("It is said that in the final days of the planet Earth, everyone had bad dreams... "), Donna and other characters appearing, and finally the Master. This is all verifiable information. Hektor (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The voiceover is Dalton.  Cargoking  talk  11:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is idiotic. The title was revealed in the trailer in the same way The Waters of Mars was. If we accept that, we accept this. By default. Fuck. --Silurian King (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's not. With "The Water of Mars", it's not ambiguous. With "The End of Time", like "The Return of the Cybermen", however, it is. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye here. The page doesn't work right now, but here the news item is given the title "The End of Waiting". U-Mos (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no title, but Lucy Saxon confirmed. Some fast worker's already added it in. U-Mos (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the new Waters of Mars trailer, the knocking comes in. Should you remove the bit about it here? Toasted Tie (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No. There's no knowing if that's "the" knocking or not, and its relation to this episode. U-Mos (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

'The End of Waiting' is referring to not having to wait to find out what's going on, not a title. Whoniverse93 talk? 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, what I meant was that article had potential to reveal the title as "The End of Time". But it didn't. U-Mos (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, yeah that's true. People need to stop adding The End of Time as the title though, if it is the title, the BBC should have confirmed it. Whoniverse93 talk? 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We may not hear until the end of Waters of Mars, though that seems a tad late. Personally it seems likely the final two are "Nightmares Reign" / "The End Of Time", but until we have a reliable source we cannot add that Tphi (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The End of Time is confirmed by DWM as the final, 75-minute, episode of the "season", while the 60-minute, penultimate one is still unnamed. That's how I would summarize the situation. Now the question is : is DWM a reliable source. Hektor (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor claims that the latest DWM lists it as "The End of Time", but could someone please post exactly what the story says? I would be more comfortable with a BBC source rather than a magazine that could be jumping the gun like everyone else. If DWM is genuinely reliable enough for this, then add it, but I suggest caution. magnius (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the exact words: "At the convention (SDCC), it was confirmed that the second part of the story - Tennant final episode of Doctor Who- is called The End of Time. The title of Part One, however, has yet to be revealed... DWM is a very reputable source, it is the official magazine for Doctor Who, as licensed by the BBC and has been printed monthly since 1979. --90.202.162.197 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Announced by who? A few words in a trailer is NOT reliable. If this is the title, where is the announcement on the official Doctor Who website? Where is the quote from RTD? There is NOTHING official that states that this was inteded to be taken as the title. I fear that a usually reliable source has made a mistake, and would still be far happier if we waited for something from the BBC themselves. Accepting this as a title is a big thing, it involves the page being moved. Wouldn't it be far better to wait until there is no doubt whatsoever? I conceed that it could be the title, but I think that there is still a big enough question mark over it to hold back...wait and see. There is no need to rush into it. magnius (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely we can not move and split this article at the moment as we do not know who is going to appear in each part? In any case I would suggest that there is no need for a split to take place until the episodes have been shown and we have a plot summary. Can I suggest that this article be move protected, and people add The End of Time (Doctor Who) and The End of Time (Doctor Who episode) to their watchlists?

We should by no means move the article at this stage. There is not enough info to encyclopediacly seperate the episodes into two articles, and we have no title for episode 1. But as DWM, a reliable source, literally states the second part is called "The End of Time", completely ignoring this in the article is totally wrong. Verifiability, not truth. We don't get to choose when something is verifiable and when it isn't when it suits. The second episode is called "The End of Time". There is a source. It should be in the article. Then can be no argument against that. U-Mos (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The preview at the end of 'The Waters of Mars' said "The End of Time" for "Chistmas 2009", possibly indicating that it is the title they are using for the next episode/story. It seems unlikely that they would use the title that does not correspond to the very episode that they are previewing, so this may be some kind of indication. If the DWM lists it as the last episode, then maybe it will be an overall title for the story encompassing both episodes. MarcRS (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not though. See below. The End of Time is the second episode, the first is six words long and to date has not been revealed. Annoyingly. U-Mos (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Don't you think he looks tired." --Billpg (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make this abundantly clear (aimed at no-one in particular): there was a trailer for Xmas 2008 which bore the words RETURN OF THE CYBERMEN. This was not the title, as it turned out. We only know that the title of the second half is "The End of Time" – that's the situation, there's nothing more to be said. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 11:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

scifiwire.com

Topel, Fred (2009-07-30). "BBC America to air Who uncut, and quicker". SCI FI Wire. SyFy. Retrieved 2009-07-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• I think this only says that the last episode is going to be 75 mins long, but an edit along these lines has already been reverted. Am I missing something?

• Is this a good enough reference for this last episode to be named "The End of Time"? It puts this title in quotes ...

Edgepedia (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it's not the BBC, perhaps it's best to wait until they officially announce it. Whoniverse93 talk? 10:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

'Too many quotes' notice

I note the 'Too many quotes' notice on this page and wish to suggest that no action is needed at this point.

While the article as it currently exists does appear quote-heavy, this is a temporary artifact of the episode in question not having been broadcast yet. Once the entry is expanded with all of the details which will emerge upon broadcast -- not only the plot and interrelations with other programs, but production details which are still under wraps -- the existing quotes will either blend in more naturally, or in some cases perhaps be edited out as superfluous. In the meantime, they provide some of the most concrete and specific information available.

Converting them to summary form would weaken the entry and perhaps introduce misleading or inaccurate text, while forcing them off the page entirely at this preliminary stage would reduce the utility and enjoyment that the page offers to its primary readership.

Praghmatic (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC) btw, I have long acquaintance with Wikipedia although I have only just created a login. Hello 8^)

Welcome to Wikipedia! And I agree with you: the tag is unfounded, as there is no hard limit on how many quotes can be used. As long as they're all encyclopedic, the {{toomanyquotes}} template is unnecessary. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

eleventh doctor a guest star

do you think the eleventh doctor should be moved to guest star as he wil only probably appear in a cameo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.171.163 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the Doctor is the main character regardless of who is playing him, and for how long. magnius (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, because, as you say, he'll probably only appear in cameo, and thus will not be a star by any stretch of the imagination! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Does regeneration count as a cameo?  Cargoking  talk  17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Tenth Doctor is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parting_of_the_Ways not as a guest star, but as The Doctor (along with the Ninth). Ratemonth (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Claire Bloom

Magnius' edit summary: "It is known that she is in it, but her part has not been officially confirmed."... in which case we need a better source. The Telegraph is reporting on the Daily Mail story that she is playing the Doctor's mother. If we are not accepting as fact she is playing that role (and quite rightly so, in my opinion), then what evidence do we have to accept as fact that she is in it at all? I haven't seen any, and there certainly isn't any sourced in the article. I'd lean to reporting what has been reported, per the telegraph, in the article and removing her from the infobox for the time being. U-Mos (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused. Even though her role is not confirmed, the Telegraph is pretty sure she is to appear. Regardless of what role she will be playing, isn't it confirmed she has some role, thus deserving a credit here? Or did I misread anything? — Edokter • Talk • 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I see the article, they are reporting on the Daily Mail's own reports that she is in the episode, playing the Doctor's mother. It's quotes are only those from the Daily Mail, and it does not cite any sources of its own. So in essence, we only have the Daily Mail's word for Bloom being in these episodes. I really don't think it's enough to say she's definitely going to appear. here is the Mail's article. Really that's our only source, and if it is to be trusted (which I wouldn't say it is), it confirms her role as well as appearance. I don't see any way the two can be seperated without another independent source claiming Bloom has filmed for Doctor Who. U-Mos (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a quick google search on this. Digital spy do not think it is fact that she is in it ("said to be filming"), some other website says "if [this] is true...", [1] also uses "is said" and daily radar says "it is reported". It has not been cited as fact that she is filming in any of these. U-Mos (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The original Daily Mail article has a directly sourced quote from her manager confirming her appearance:

A BBC spokesman declines to comment, but Claire's manager in America, Marion Rosenberg, tells me: 'It is happening. They are filming at the moment. I have been organising her schedule.'

I think this is sufficient for WP:V, everything else (including the specifics of the role) is just repeating rumours, which is why it's excluded. It has been discussed above. 78.150.173.129 (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Quoting the manager is pretty much a good way to verify it because the only way that would be not true would be for the Daily Mail to tell a blatant lie, which I do not think they will risk. On the other hand, the article clearly speculates on what role she plays. Regards SoWhy 09:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Davies' last?

The claim that this will be Davies last ever Who script is not reflected in the first cite, second not loading. That's a huge claim and even if it was made in the popular press I'd still doubt it. Has anyone ever seen or heard anything from Davies himself which indicates he will never write for the show again or possibly cease to exist following his departure as producer? MartinSFSA (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Found such a quote, still dubious even with Davies himself saying this. Bah. Humbug.MartinSFSA (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation of "The End of Time"

At the bottom.  Cargoking  talk  10:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have taken the liberty to boldly move it to its title. I think the source is good enough for it, as it clearly states that the story is called "The End of Time", not that only the second episode - unlike the previous, DW magazine sourced, statement. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... it is not quite clear if this applies to both specials; it only says "final story". And multi-epidode stories tend to have seperate titles. We'll see. — Edokter • Talk • 10:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible the title of one of the episodes, correct but we don't know that and the source does not say so. But we will split this article in two parts sooner or later anyway as we have done for all multi-part stories of the new series so far, so we can name them for the episode titles as soon as we know them. Probably on 15 November 2009 when The Waters of Mars airs. Regards SoWhy 10:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Was pointed to this section - so I'll paste in my comments from the Serials page here.

Is "His final story, The End of Time, in which he will regenerate into Matt Smith's Doctor, has yet to be scheduled, but is expected to air at the end of 2009 or very early in 2010." really enough to say that both parts of the story are called "The End of Time" (Part one and part two). This could easily be lizo making the mistake of confusing "last episode" (ie the second part)with last story (ie both parts) - and given that all other two parters in the RTD era have different titles for both episodes, now would be a strange time to change that. (originally -15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

given that RTD has two production codes, that would suggest that the episodes have different titles - I don't think they'd be different production codes it the title was the same. (originally 015:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's unclear. However considering your last point Torchwood Children of Earth had five parts, five production codes and one title. Edgepedia (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure it could be. But it's not our place to question whether the undoubtedly reliable source BBC made a mistake here or not. They said the story is called this way, per WP:V we use that name. If they later say that only one episode is called this way, we can change it then. Until this happens, we have to go with what they wrote. Regards SoWhy 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

DWM reveals that there is a six word title for part 1, so an article split is inevitable. Seems it was far too early to jump the gun and rename the article after all. [2] magnius (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We always knew that it will probably be splitted but we have yet to know how to split it because all currently known details apply to both episodes. I think we can and should wait with the split until we know what should go into which article. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening Scene

Lizo Mzimba has revealed the opening scene is the Doctor arriving on the Ood Sphere: http://twitter.com/lizo_mzimba/status/5284733466 86.147.151.174 (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

David Tennant's last words as The Doctor

There is an unreferenced element of truth to what the below IP said:

It has been confirmed that David Tennant's last words as The Doctor are "You two, with me, spit spot,"

— 124.189.64.146

See this Guardian article. Although it says:

Tennant said the last line he said as the Doctor was "You two, with me, spit spot," so it was robbed of any epic quality.

— David Tennant in this Guardian article

 Cargoking  talk  18:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• True, but these last words have been said in The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith which was shot after. So not relevant here. Hektor (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Good point. I only posted to see what people thought...  Cargoking  talk  21:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Two titles

http://gallifreynewsbase.blogspot.com/2009/11/hollywood-star-joins-cast-list-for.html

Confirmed. Needs fixing. I propose keeping this page where is as an article on episode 2, and creating the other page when we have a name. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just about to say exactly the same thing. Keep this here, then create a new article for the yet-unnamed-six-word-penultimate-episode. (Who knows, it might actually be called that. Probably not.) Tphi (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic?

Might the forthcoming Doctor Who episode be considered the primary topic for the title "The End of Time"? One of the metrics used to determine primary topics is article traffic. Until October 30, this article was at 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who), and the article about the physics book was at The End of Time. In September, 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) usually got around 2,500 hits each day [3], while The End of Time had around 50 or 60 hits each day [4]. Traffic has continued to increase for this article, with around 3,300 hits daily so far in November [5]. Of course, this is temporary; the traffic will doubtless increase until the episode is broadcast, and it will decline beginning a month or so after broadcast. But I think it's reasonable to assume that even after the episode has aired, the article will continue to get hits in the same order of magnitude as other Doctor Who specials, like Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who), which gets between 300 and 400 hits each day [6]. The physics book The End of Time, by contrast, gets about 20 hits per day in most months (here's August '08, chosen at random: [7]).

Of course, article traffic isn't the only factor in determining a primary topic. A Google search for "The End of Time" gives several links about eschatology, and then about an equal number of links for the Barbour book and the forthcoming Doctor Who episode. So, is it worth proposing that this article be moved to The End of Time, or not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the article currently is about the story rather than the episodes (one of which might be titled "The End of Time", we don't know that yet), I would suggest we wait until we know the definite names of both episodes and then move it if necessary because once we know what the both episodes will be called, it's very likely to assume that the article will be split into two articles and if one of them needs to be called "The End of Time", we can then only move the necessary content via copy+paste to said article (since there is no way to split the revision history along those lines) and move the current article on that name out of the way (which is only a redirect anyway). Regards SoWhy 09:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See section above; the second episode is called "The End of Time" for definite. At this stage we really should be following what we had for Journey's End before the title The Stolen Earth was revealed. U-Mos (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The ref in the section above does not say that the second episode is called "The End of Time", only that the first is yet untitled. Regards SoWhy 11:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but the ref in the section #Confirmation of "The End of Time" [8] does confirm that the final story is titled "The End of Time". Given the DWM confirmation that the first part will have a different title, and allowing for understandable confusion between "story" and "episode", and since the title "The End of Time" has been in circulation since Comic-Con, I don't think there's actually any doubt that David Tennant's final Doctor Who episode will be titled "The End of Time". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said. U-Mos (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt it personally but there is a difference between "story" and "episode" when referring to DW. We have only a source talking about "story" for now and none which refers to it as episode so strictly (WP:V-)speaking we have to wait until we have a source explicitly talking about "episodes". Regards SoWhy 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The old DWM source calls the final episode The End of Time, with part one's title not revealed. In light of this new source, clearly the BBC article's mention of final "story" referred to the episode rather than the two-parter. At any event, if we have a source calling the first episode untitled we can't carry on calling the story The End of Time can we? U-Mos (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a good chance that in about fifteen hours we'll know the title of the first part. It's all a bit academic anyway, since we know so little about what bits apply to which episodes and there wouldn't be much point in moving the article to 2009 Doctor Who Christmas Special and The End of Time or something equally silly for half a day. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort, which is why this article is now on the second episode only. Even if we don't get a title tonight, there may be enough episode one-specific info coming our way to warrant a seperate article, but we'll have to see about that. The alternative is to go back to 2009 Christmas specials for an article on both episodes. But this has to be decided later. U-Mos (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since we don't yet know the six-word title for the Christmas episode, and we largely don't know what information in this article applies to that episode and what applies to "The End of Time", I'd suggest that it makes sense to continue to treat this article as one about both episodes until the title is revealed. I don't think it really matters much whether the article is titled "The End of Time" or "2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who)", but I think that until we have a title for the penultimate episode we should cover both in one article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How about we create 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) since 4.18 is really a New Years Day special and treat that article as the one for episode 4.17 that is as of yet untitled? That way we could have an article for the 4.17 episode as a target for the succession links and prefill it with what we know now and can rename it once the title is known. On a side note, the BBC press office publishes programme information on Thurdays[9], so if they publish the information for 19-25 December 2009 tomorrow, we might learn the title tomorrow. Unless RTD told them not to reveal it that is. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that creating 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) is the best course of action for now. My initial inclination was to wait until we knew the title, but since we're getting a preview during Children in Need on Friday we'll start to have content for a separate article pretty soon. It would be nice if we learned the title tomorrow! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've rearranged the content; others should double-check to see if there's anything that belongs on one page or the other but isn't there (or is on a page and doesn't belong there).

So now that we have two articles, can we reconsider my question from the beginning of this section? Can we treat the New Year's Day Doctor Who special as the primary topic for the title "The End of Time"? Should we put a proposal in at WP:RM? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cast List

The main issue with this now being the episode is - are all the cast sourced for the SECOND episode? Some may only appear in part one. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a footnote explaining the provenance of the cast list. I'm not entirely happy with it, since it's hard to do within the constraints of the infobox. If we're going to be strict, the other alternative is to remove the list of guest stars - since none has been confirmed as appearing in th second part. If we do this, I think they can still be mentioned in the article. I think the easiest thing is to leave it as it is, with the note. The references make it clear that they're appearing in the two-parter, but not necessarily in both parts, and the article will be updated once official listings are available. Maccy69 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Preceding episode

Just wondering, if Waters of Mars isn't the preceding episode as stated here, why is this episode shown as the follow on at the Waters of Mars article? TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ask there. Waters of Mars is 4.16 - 4.17 is an unknown title (first part of the two part finale) The End of Time is 4.18 - so if this is for the episode then waters of Mars sn't the last episode 9the untitles 4/17 would be) nor The end of Time the following episode o waters of Mars. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate episode articles

Now that we know that both episodes will have the same title, only with Part One and Part Two, should we create two articles for them or leave it as one? The classic DW serials usually have only one article per story while the new series has always had separate articles for episodes, even if they are connected (e.g. The Stolen Earth and Journey's End (Doctor Who)). My suggestion would be to have this article about the story and have The End of Time, Part One and The End of Time, Part Two as separate articles for the episodes since there will likely be enough content to justify stand-alone episodes but I wonder what others think. It's a somewhat new situation now. Regards SoWhy 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Will there really be enough for 3 articles? Plot summary can be kept to a short, succint length in one article, which will also be able to cover the fit to the overall story arc and the regeneration (assuming it happens in these) - all sourced, of course! Either one or two, would seem better to me, not three. GedUK  14:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct that a story-article is not needed if we have episode ones. I think with plot summaries the usual length of a DW episode, reception, production details unique to one of the episodes (trailer, etc.), we will probably find enough for two separate articles (see aforementioned examples which despite one story could not possibly be made into a single article). Regards SoWhy 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends. While they could have vastly different receptions and other factors, they appear to have been produced concurrently and be one continuous story (rather than the subtle difference in the shifts in our previous two-parters). For comparison, see Graduation Day (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) or Through the Looking Glass (Lost).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I say leave it as it is until transmission and then follow whatever convention the website uses. I think there should either be one or two articles, not three. As a pre-transmission article, though, it works much better as just one article. Maccy69 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think that three articles would be overkill. Also, I think that one article is probably sufficient; frankly, the only real reason we have separate articles for other two-part episodes is that there's no simple way to name them. I see no substantive difference between the two parts of "The End of Time" and the multiple parts of any classic Doctor Who serial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say treat it like the other Doctor Who stories with an overall story tile - one article for the whole thing. Children of Earth follows this as well - and so do the SJA two parters. When these articles were (albeit briefly) split up the content was exactly the same basically - so theres no need to have two different articles that say the same thing. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)