Talk:The End of Time/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Radio Times

The most recent Radio Times (with Tennant on the cover) confirms Clare Bloom and Brian Cox are in the cast for this story, though it doesn't mention their roles. (We knew that both were in the cast, but it hadn't been confirmed by an official source yet.) Bloom's already in the infobox, but Cox can now be added; I'd do it myself, but I don't have a copy of the RT with which to cite the reference properly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's on page 18, there are some picture of it here. I'll add it later today if nobody else does first. Maccy69 (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New trailer apperently

There is another trailer ad it looks new found it today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUYWslAZfkE is it worth meationing what happeneds in it? Pro66 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Have added the details from official BBC version found here. Also, see the BBC Press Office page here, which features a copy of this trailer. SuperMarioMan (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC One Christmas branding/idents

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/features/bulletins/bulletin_091204_03

Is it worth mentioning this in the article? 81.23.48.116 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, in the trailer section. Along with the latest BBC trails. You can use Template:Cite_video to source all the additions as well. I may hae a go in a bit, if no-one else does first. Maccy69 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, with YouTube source. SuperMarioMan (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Working Title

RTD mentions in the latest issue of Doctor Who magazine that part one was going to be called "The Final days of Planet Earth" before changing it to the Part One/Part Two format - is it worth mentioning this anywhere? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article, the last paragraph of the writing section. People move fast around here, don't they? :) Maccy69 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So it is - missed it. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I added it. This most recent issue of DWM doesn't really add much to what's already known about the specials – apart from the bit about the working title and some minor additions to the cast list (with the other announced roles mostly complementing Radio Times), there's little to find. Interestingly, however, the preview section says that the Master will be just as close to death as the Doctor in these two episodes; he will be reborn, but his vitality will be far from assured, so he'll come up with a scheme to keep himself alive. As Davies is quoted as saying, "Something's gone very wrong with his return ... that X-ray effect seen in the trail, where he's all skin and bones, is just the start of the trouble ... A dying Time Lord is a terrifying thing! So with the Master dying, the Doctor's end approaching, and both determined to survive, they're hurtling along an almighty collision course." Perhaps the "skeletising" effect seen in the trailers is him in his weakened state, an updating of his emaciated, decayed look in The Deadly Assassin. SuperMarioMan (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Previews and Trailers

Edokter has removed the descriptions of some preview clips on the basis that they are not trailers. I was instinctively tempted to do this as well, but didn't because we were already describing preview clips. Mainly to see how it looks, I've now removed all the non-trailer descriptions. I think this is probably a bit harsh, but it also doesn't seem appropriate that we should be describing all the advance publicity for this story in great detail. A possible way forward, we describe all the trailers (including the Comic Con one) as briefly as possible (the latest one needs adding as well) and any preview clips that are on the BBC official site or on its YouTube site. That would mean restoring the Children in Need preview the general Christmas preview and the preview clip with June Whitfield. With the exception of Children in Need, we probably don't need to refer to which programmes the preview clips were shown on. What do people think, does that make sense? If we do it, should we change the title to previews and trailers? Maccy69 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While I think we should not list evrery preview ever broadcast, we should defenitely leave the Children in Need preview, as that captures the premise of the story quite well. The other one were just featurettes showing of several gueststars with no connection to the plot. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Some stuff:

The Ood Cave is the famous Wookey Hole Caves. (Fact File)
Timothy Dalton is the President of the Time Lord Council. (UK-exclusive preview)

I'd include it myself, but I'm busy watching Confidential. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Part two exclusive scene:

I made an edit about this but it was reverted. My edit is as follows. Can someone read the following and tell me why it was reverted:

SPOILER WARNING

Part Two's opening scene is on Galifrey and shows crashed Dalek ships and the time lord citadel burning. This scene prophecises that The Doctor will destroy the time lords and daleks and that today is the last day of the time war and Gailfrey will wall. One of the female time lords states that perhaps it's time and that this is only the furthest edge of the time war but at it's heart millions die every second lost in blood lust and insanity and that time itself ressurects them to find new ways of dieing over and over again. She says that this is a travesty of life and isn't it better to end it at last. The time lord president Timothy Dalton then thanks her for her opinion and then kills her with a flash of blue light from his fist similar to The Master and then screams 'I WILL NOT DIE'. This can be seen on exclusive scene which is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/S0_09 This scene starts immediately after the opening credits.

What I have edited is confirmed in an exclusive scene trailer on the offical doctor who site http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/S0_09 so therefore I feel my edit is justified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.19.29 (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok Maybe I should have put this edit in the trailers and previews section???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.19.29 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks more like Dalton's character is using something like the resurrection gauntlet from Torchwood, rather than having similar powers to the Master. We'll find out in a week, but anything more is speculation for now. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. At least that's a valid argument compared to the idiot who made the personal attack on me (I am now posting this logged in) and who's IP address is allowing ICMP packets through. We shall wait and see, I can't wait. I'm wondering if the rumors about The Doctor and The Master teaming up will prove true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryten2340 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Early in this episode, the Doctor mentioned that he married Queen Elizabeth and made her cross. Did anyone else realise that this is why in "The Shakespere Code" She ordered her guards to kill him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.251.92 (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, but I'll answer: it's likely. Elizabeth was well renowned for her virginity, and the Doctor sleeping with her (and leaving her) would annoy her. Sceptre ^(talk)

I heard that differently - he referred to getting married, then referred to Queen E. I assumed the 'married' was about River Song from the previous 'silence in the library' story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.76.50 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I assume everyone who'd seen both programmes would have noticed this. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You assumed wrong. I've seen both, and the implication about the 'virgin queen' is much stronger.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FORUM isn't complicated. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 11:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Woman

Resolved

– Has been added to the article. No further speculation necessary. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The summary of part 1 does not mention the woman in white who can be seen three times and who talks with Wilf twice (including once through the TV set). I think she is an important and mysterious plot element and should be mentioned. Hektor (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Go on, then! :) ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 16:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just speculation but I wonder if she is the White Guardian? Asta2500 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) On second thought, just did a screen capture from coming attractions, and in the frame with Time Lords on white background, with Doctor holding gun, the woman on the right in red robes (second person fro right) is the same "Woman" in white from first episode. Asta2500 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Rose's Theme" is played in the background while The Woman convinces The Doctor to turn his gun on the thingiemagig. She's probably an aged Rose Tyler. (not forum, just wondering if this should be included as significant (as significant as the Captain Jack-Face of Bo connection) -Bogger (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that wasn't Rose's Theme that was playing, as we heard vocalizations and that song doesn't have any. Actually, I am pretty sure the music we heard was excerpted from Doomsday, the music played in the episode of the same name. Teekno (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that wasn't Doomsday, it was "The Doctor's Theme". The Melanie Pappenheim vocalizations threw me. But the point still stands, it's certainly not Rose's theme. Teekno (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It says in the article that Julie Gardner refers to the woman as the Doctor's mother. Where is the reference for that? Where/when did she affirm this? We should reference it. 69.127.156.131 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We still need a reference for this supposition regarding the woman being the Doctor's mother. Has Rose's theme even been played for a character other than Rose before in the series? This rasises serious questions about her identity. 24.46.159.137 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speculating about Rose's theme is not admissable. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the discussion page where we discuss it? 69.127.156.131 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Until I came to this page, I had presumed she was Romana... 219.175.14.11 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Time Lords did not survive the war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article needs correcting. The Time Lords you see in the End OF Time are still involved in the war, it's just that their section of the war is contemporary with the 21st Century and occurs before the Doctor used the Eye of Harmony at some point in the future of their experiential timeline to end the war. When in the future the Doctor uses the Eye, he effectively kills off the Daleks and the Time Lords. --Xero (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your hypothesis. Now if you would provide citeable sources, that would be appreciated. DonQuixote (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is one of those "wait till jan 2nd and see" moments 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 11:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panopticon

Resolved

– Wikipedia is not a forum. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reasons that we cannot firmly call the chamber seen at the end of part one the Panopticon (see original source issues in pages history). However, could we not at least mention the possibility given that the chamber is full of Time Lords in formal dress (generally only worn on formal occasion such as in the Panopticon - see: The Deadly Assassin) and that the President of the council is addressing them from a six-sided platform similar to that in The Deadly Assassin? My previous edits today only called its identification as the Panopticon a possibility. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and realise I may not be correct about this. Thank you for your advice. --Thetictocmonkey (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum; we deal in what can be verified, not speculated. Besides, there's less than a week to wait! Ged UK 14:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be a synthesis based on the material, i.e. reaching a conclusion that has not been seen on screen - it could be any chamber, on any planet. Also, it would conflict with the information of previous episodes, i.e. that Gallifrey has been destroyed in the Time War. As Ged says, let's wait until Part Two, then we might know more. Currently we only know that the Time Lords somehow survived, but not how or where. Regards So Why 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice, guys! Blessings, Thetictocmonkey 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, we do not know what/where this chamber is... for all we know now, it could be on a spaceship, as it was in Trial of a Time Lord. Asta2500 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Miss Trefusis

Resolved

– It doesn't matter. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone recall a portrait of a Mrs. Trefusis in The Stones of Blood? I imagine this is just a coincidence... if there is such a thing. Asta2500 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed a portrait of a Mrs. Trefusis in the manor house in Tom Baker's The Stones of Blood. This appears to be RTD nodding to fans in small ways, like Rani in the Sarah Jane adventures. 69.127.156.131 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who and T S Eliot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In The Lazarus Experiment, Lazarus and the Doctor quoted from The Hollow Men (and the episode could have been about a murder in a cathedral).

Throughout TEoT, references to a wasteland were made, and now I'm thinking of four beats/knocks/quartets.

(I should add that TLE quotation was: "between the desire, and the spasm, between the potency, and the existence, between the essence, and the descent, falls the Shadow".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.71.250 (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good for you. Cargoking talk 23:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Simm

Resolved

– See previous discussion. Cargoking talk 13:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article currently lists John Simm as a guest star. However, he is credited with star billing in the episode. Ω phois 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Oh shit, they've confused companion/guest star/other again. Cargoking talk 13:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What some of you don't relise...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

... is tht the time lords must hve been revied and did not survive the time war. RTY1998 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a forum. Maccy69 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean

I didn't mean it in a fourm way. I ment to clear somethings up. RTY1998 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't want you to "clear somethings up" – if your comment is not about how to improve the article "The End of Time" then it belongs somewhere else on the Internet. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On going Ginger Comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can someone please confirm that the ginger comments refer to the Novelisation of the 7th Dr Story where it is said that the future incarnation of the Doctor that is Merlin also has red hair?

This could be why he is wondering if he is ginger - to see if this could be his final incarnation (ignoring the timey whimy thingie of course) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.195.42 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would he think it was his final incarnation, he knows how many Time Lords have! Thetictocmonkey 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Because as mentioned during the End of Time and implied in 'turn left' that if death happans to quickly for the regeneration sequence to start, that he could die for good (kind of explains the 8th drs comments in the movie as well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.195.42 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point! :) - Thetictocmonkey 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

However, this being speculation, we are not going to include it in the article, perhaps you should seek this information elsewhere. This is not a fan forum. Regards, Thetictocmonkey 22:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rasilon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is the narrator really Rasilon??? --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you use the section of this page dedicated to exactly this debate? Cheers, Thetictocmonkey 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuity Glitch - Wilfred's Gun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wikipedia can host neither a list of supposed continuity errors nor chit-chat and speculation about them. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 09:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if it matters, and didn't want to add in if it didn't matter. That said, when the Master looks for Wilfred's mobile, he finds the gun and drops it on the floor. But on board the ship, Wilfred hands the doctor the gun. How did it get back into his pocket? LMB02 (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Master tossed it on the floor when he found it. Evidently, Wilfred picked it up again between 14:00 and 14:10.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 09:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Romana ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is it me or is the mysterious woman Romana? After all she was Lord President. Kacembepower (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link to series 5?

I've restored the link to "Series 5" in the "following" part. It seems to me that, to a general reader, knowing that there is another series which will follow this episode is more useful than not. It seems unnecessarily pedantic to insist on a named episode for the "following" link. How is it improving this article to remove the link? Can we at least get some consensus here before removing it again? Maccy69 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a yearly re-occuring discussion. Those links are indeed only ment to link to the next episode. And since there isn't any article for that yet, there is nothing to link to. Mixing episodes and lists in the Chronology section is also consusing to the reader. The infobox already contains a link to the list of serials article, so it would merely be a duplicate link anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 16:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Maccy's reasoning is sound, the infobox should aid the casual reader who will be more confused to find no article link at that place rather than a link to a list that tells them that a next article cannot be created at the moment. Regards So Why 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of this on the project page. I disagree that it would be confusing. It's pretty clear, next is another series. What would confuse a reader about that? Clicking on the series link to get an overview of where the episode sits in relation to possible future series (which are not mentioned) requires a lot more of the reader than simply clicking the link that says "followed by". Leaving the link in makes it extremely clear that this episode will be followed by another series and provides a convenient link to information about that series. Again, seriously, how is the article improved by omitting this link? I'll go along with consensus on this, but I'd like to see what others say. Please note that I wasn't the person who put the link in so that's two editors who disagree with you on this. ~~I'm reverting you again. That's both of us up to 3RR. Can we just leave it and wait for others to contribute? I think that's reasonable, apologies if I'm interpreting WP:BRD incorrectly~~. Actually, I changed my mind, I'll let others edit this.Maccy69 (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody needs to revert anything, the article is perfectly OK as it is now. Once we've read the discussions in question (which Edokter will link to, hopefully) we can revisit the issue. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, could you perhaps link to the previous years' debate, so that we can see what the thinking behind it was? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I put on a link to Series 5 about a year ago and it was deleted then too. I agree with Maccy69... Blaine Coughlan (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a link to the previous discussion of this, I plan to re-add the link later today, unless anyone objects here. Maccy69 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Again, The following= link should only link to episodes. There is already a link to the Series page in the infobox. Discussion is scattered throughout the archives and I have trouble finding it. — Edokter • Talk • 13:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I object too, as stated that section is there to link to an episode, not a series/season. Let's wait until an episode title can be sourced. magnius (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it. But I still think you're both being needlessly pedantic and I don't see how making that distinction makes the article better for the general reader. Surely it should be about making information readily available, not consistency for its own sake? Oh and consensus can chnage. Is it worth broadening this discussion to the project page? Maccy69 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I already posted a note there. — Edokter • Talk • 14:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think Maccy's reasoning is sound; the point is to show the reader what comes next, and a link to the "series 5" section of the list of serials would do that. Of course, what text we put there is open to discussion (Series 5? Series 1? Series 31? 2010 series?), but I don't see any reason not to have the link. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A series is not an episode. I may be anal about this, but I think it confuses the reader who expect to see the next episode's article. — Edokter • Talk • 22:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

But the reader doesn't see "next episode" in the infobox; he or she sees "followed by". It is just as accurate to say that The End of Time will be followed by Series 5 (or 1, or 31, or whatever we decide on calling it) as it is to name the next episode. I think that readers can cope with that, especially if they follow the link and see that the names of the episodes haven't yet been revealed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The reader also sees "Chronology", so the reader may certainly expect to see the next story when (s)he clicks the link. — Edokter • Talk • 12:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How does "Chronology" imply "next story"? At best, it implies "what comes next". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Josiah is right. Chronology explicitly means "what comes next", not "what episode is next". We would have called the section "Episodes" or "stories" or something like that if we want to have only stories as links. Currently, the reader expects that they can find a link there to the whatever comes next and as long as we don't have an episode to put there, we should add at least add the series. I don't think any reader is confused if they click "Series 5" and find a series overview instead of an episode article. Regards So Why 13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll, anyone? SuperMarioMan (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite misleading to have no link to "what comes next"--- did we consider something like "TBA" to at least inform the casual reader that there is indeed a subsequent episode and that this is not the end? Asta2500 (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a general reader could easily assume that the series has been cancelled. However, I think that TBA is less useful than a link to the information that we do have. Given the discussion above, I've taken the consensus to be for putting the link in and been bold and put it back in. Maccy69 (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job... shortly we will have an actual episode title, no doubt... 69.127.156.131 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We have an episode title. It's called "The Eleventh Hour" and it's written by Steven Moffat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Now all we need is a reliable source. — Edokter • Talk • 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit, they've confused companion/guest star/other again

http://www.sfx.co.uk/page/sfx?entry=sfx_at_the_doctor_who As I thought might happen, John Simm's name is in the opening credits. So the Master isn't a guest star. But he can't be a companion. What the hell do we do? U-Mos (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't describe him as a "guest star" – that's essentially what he is, surely? ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 10:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not if his name's up in lights with Tennant and Cribbins, surely? U-Mos (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's got to be listed as either a companion or a guest star, there's no third option. And I agree, I don't think he's a companion. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 10:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? He might be. Let's wait until we see the episode, then we can discuss it. Not now... Regards So Why 11:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well no, we have a reliable source saying he is in the titles. I linked it above. U-Mos (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that SoWhy suggested that we wait to see the episode, and subsequently decide if he should count as a companion or not; not whether he appears in the titles. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 12:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just make a third option? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.90.16 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for him as a companion - if not then inclusion in the opening credits doesn't make him one. simple 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. As I said, there is no way he can be a companion. But his inclusion in the titles makes listing him as a guest star seem wrong. U-Mos (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Who says that he can't be a companion? We have no real idea of the plot developments that will happen, especially in part two. Maybe one of the big twists is that The Doctor and The Master are forced to team up to battle this "danger that threatens the entire universe.". We will know soon enough, less than two weeks and we will have all the facts. magnius (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion in the credits does not equal companion status (Peter Davison in Time Crash). Companion status does not equal a place in the credits (Mickey, Adam, Jack in Series 1). It's very simple. Leave him as a guest star, that's what he is until we hear otherwise. Tphi (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Lindsay Duncan was listed in the opening credits of "The Waters of Mars" and she wasn't a companion. Blaine Coughlan (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

She was a companion, according to the BBC (Lindsay plays Adelaide – the Doctor's cleverest and most strong-minded companion) and the 'Radio Times' (Lindsay Duncan has been revealed as the Time Lord's newest companion). Please avoid making such sweeping statements if they're not true, particularly if there are reliable sources to the contrary clearly listed on Wikipedia itself. Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure she was, under the "specials companion" system they have. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And Michelle Ryan in PotD. 88.107.116.190 (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I wasn't going by the publicity and promotional material but by the actual episode itself in which it is extremely clear that Adelaide Brooke is absolutely not a companion. Blaine Coughlan (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You see, this is what really frustrates me. We don't care about your "clear" interpretations of the episode. Because they're subjective and personal. The more you insist that they're reasonable, the more contrary sources crop up. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 09:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you folks want to be cheeky, of course, The Master was listed as a companion in JNT's Companions book... 96.39.62.90 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Catherine Tate is listed as a guest star and not a companion, also Billy Piper are these no longer companions because the BBC does not say they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.163.161 (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither Tate or Piper (or the Master) as companions in this story, thus they are not listed as such. Let's end this discussion here. Tphi (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While you may believe that this discussion was not concluded, TreasuryTag, there was no reason to delete my comment, which responds to the two above it. We have no knowledge of Simm's character becoming a companion in this story, and no sources with even a whiff of this being the case. You claim we have no sources either way - there is no need to look for sources to prove something that isn't in question wrong. The only reason this discussion came about was because of Simm's placement in the credits, which was addressed by myself above. Closing this discussion was to end needless speculation, which was rapidly wandering anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tphi (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry I mistakenly deleted your comment.

We need to list Simm as either a companion or a guest-star; there is conflicting evidence, and – as far as I understand – this issue has not yet been resolved. I know that you "addressed" this issue above, but that is not the be-all and end-all.

I am aware of the rampant speculation and piles of crap being left in this section, but closing it isn't a solution. Such material can be deleted per WP:TALK#topic and WP:FORUM, or a note left asking for a cessation. Don't close sections if the genuine, article-related discussion hasn't concluded yet (which it hasn't, in this case). ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 13:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, I can quote Wiki policy at you too. I don't see the difference between closing this discussion, and, for example, the one you did below on "Time Lords did not survive the war". Closing this is not WP:OWN, it is merely pruning a discussion thread that has gone as far as it can go. I agree Simm should be listed either as a companion or guest star, but I fail to see any conflicting evidence here. Once again, this discussion arose simply due to Simm's placement in the titles, but we know from previous episodes in the series that this does not equal companion status. I locked this because any hypothesis otherwise is futile without evidence to back it up, because debate on the matter appeared ceased, and the topic had clearly wandered onto discussion of companion status in other episodes, this is not genuine article-related discussion. Tphi (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain the difference between this discussion and, "Time Lords did not survive the war". That section has no factual basis, is completely unrelated to developing the article, and is merely one user's guess of what will happen next week. This section, on the other hand, exists to determine a very real problem about the structuring of the page.

The conflicting evidence is that John Simm was listed in the titles, a space generally [touch wood] reserved for companions, but no extraneous sources refer to him as such. The issue over Adelaide Brooke's status is related.

Debate on the matter has not ceased, regardless of whether or not it "appears" so, so please keep the section open (we don't usually close sections just because they look finished, anyway). Thanks :) ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this conversation ended up being about whether he was a companion or not... but anyways, why must it be an either-or situation? No rule states that he must be either a companion or a guest star. A tweak can easily be made to the infobox to include a third option. Ω phois 15:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just introduced a "special guest star" field just for this episode, as a compromise. I know that the real distinction between "guest star" and "special guest star" is contractual, but seeing as top billing is also contractual with most shows... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the way it looks now, to be honest. Well done! ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 16:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay TT. We'll have to agree to disagree about the Adelaide discussion being necessary (there's no worry about her placement in WoM's article due to the sources naming her a companion, as yourself and others have stated). A third option for unprecedented situations like Simm's is not perfect - I would prefer if we're deciding people to be "special guest stars" we have a source naming them as such beyond our own interpretations of the opening titles. But its probably the best solution for now Tphi (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We could have a bright-line of "in the opening credits, not considered a companion". Sceptre ^(talk) 16:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

- Just another spanner. Part two might have Timothy Dalton upgraded to lead titles. Where will he go on the cast list. He is certainly bigger box office than Simm, Cribbins, and even Tennant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.163.161 (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

- I'm worried that we're using this information source incorrectly. The *only* thing that controls the order of people in the titles is their contracts with the production company - it's a combination of what the star wants, and what the production company wants, and neither of those rule. To use them to determine who is or is not a companion is WP:OR and to overlay a meaning on them that they simply don't have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrigan (talk • contribs) 11:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, agreed. Probably the best solution to this. That would sort Dalton too if necessary.

Etrigan, anyone but the BBC determining who is/isn't a companion would be OR, but we're not doing that. I think you have the wrong end of the stick - we're just discussing special provisions for someone who isn't a companion but has still received their name in the opening credits. Don't worry :) The only companion we know of remains Cribbins Tphi (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If "special guest star" is a bit OR, what about "also starring"? That should cover it, no?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put him back under Guest stars; "Special" guest star is POV and OR. Find a source calling him a special guest star, otherwise, he belongs with every other credited guest star. — Edokter • Talk • 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Parentheses

This is probably a fairly dumb point, considering the whole page is liable to be completely rewritten in a few days time, but the current plot summary for episode one could probably do with less use of parentheses - particulary in relation to the events of former episodes. Anyone agree? I'd rather pool opinion before editing willy-nilly Absurdtrousers (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, we should convert them into em-dashes. It looks more professional. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)