Talk:The Keeper of Traken/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Time on the Master's Tardis

I have a question for khaosworks, 23skidoo, Josiah Rowe and any other of the wikipedians who take such good care of these Dr Who pages. Note #7 about the time on the clock on the Master's Tardis brings up a couple of questions.

1. Is this sourced to any of the production team who worked on this story? I am not saying that it isn't possible that this was done on purpose, but
2. This is not a digital clock - how do we know that the time isn't 11:55 or 11:54 etc. and how do we know it isn't a.m. rather than p.m.?
3. Did the clock have the same time on it when last we saw it at the end of The Deadly Assassin? I know that it is a totally different clock from the one filmed in that episode but I am just curious.

The Keeper Of Traken was actually the first full story of the show that I remember seeing back in 1982 so it has a special place in my affections. I have studied and read numerous books and articles about Dr Who over the years, although not as much as some of you I am sure, and I hadn't encountered this observation before. If it is sourced material I would like to know where it came from so that I might be able to add the book or magazine interview to my collection. Also, I am not against fan speculation. That is one of the joys of being a Dr Who fan as there is so much to speculate about. But, if this is a fandom note I feel that it should be described as such. Thanks ahead of time to anyone who can help with this.User:MarnetteD | Talk 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When I originally added the note, I put the word "supposedly" because I couldn't find a source showing production team intent. I've reworded the note to indicate that it's a fan interpretation - although I'll continue to look for a source for intent because I'm pretty sure it was done on purpose. —Whouk (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An update to the above discussion. I have just watched the new DVD release of this story. During the commentary of ep 4 Johnny Byrne states that the scene in question is a tribute to Tom's leaving the show. I still have a couple of reservations about this.

1. Byrne is stating this 20 some odd years after the show was made. Neither Matt W., Anthony A. or Sarah S. act like they had ever heard this before. Most importantly it is stated in an earlier section of the commentary, and in the making of documentary (this item is not mentioned in this either), that Mr Byrne delivered his script for this story and then went to Greece. He was not involved in the production in any form and he compliments Chris Bidmead for doing such a good job with his ideas. Thus, he must have heard this story in the years after ep 4 aired. Where? At a convention? Had this already become a piece of fancruft when he first encountered it?
2. A close look at the last 8 minutes reveals the following - interesting - items about the scenes where you can see the time on the clock. The first time that you can see it is over the Doctors left shoulder. The time on it reads 11:27 or 28. A few moments later as the Master plays with the Doctor's hair and is about to bond with his body the clock reads 11:35. When the Master enters this second TARDIS to escape the flames that are consuming his "Melkur" one it reads 11:37. The next time we see it is the only time that it reads 11:56 (and this answers a couple of my points in my first note from 2006 above) and that is when Tremas' hand adheres to it so that the Master can bond with him. In the next moment (after a camera angle shift), when the new Master opens the door of this TARDIS to leave it has backed up a couple of minutes and reads 11:54.

Now I know that this is a lot of words over such a small point. I am posting it to state that if another editor wants to put it back in you can cite Byrne's commentary and I won't remove it. I just don't feel comfortable reentering it as the evidence of the varying times on the clock still makes it feel fancrufty to me. If anyone can cite a source from someone who actually worked on the production staff during the taping of the scenes in question that would help with my reservations. Thanks for your time in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

N-space

The link to "n-space" on this article directs to an article that is completely irrelevent, therefore I have removed it. Retrorocker (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nyssa as a companion

We cannot simply ignore sources because one editor feels another one is more correct. I've added a footnote clarifying the issue, but a citation for a reliable source that lists Nyssa as not a companion in this story is needed.

I would also point out that if we want to treat the JNT book as gospel, the Master should also be moved to the Companions section. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your source (one source by the way so the use of the word sources is incorrect) is a webpage written by someone years after this season was recorded. First, nowhere on the page you link to does it call Nyssa a companion. Next it states that she travelled with the Doctor from Keeper until Terminus. This shows the source to be unreliable since she does not travel with the Dr in, or at the end of, Keeper. The creators of the show are the best source to go to (as we do with Adam Mitchell). Added to that there are numerous other sources - including the Fourth Doctor handbook - that state that she becomes a companion in Logopolis. You seem to treat this one source as gospel ignoring the many other sources that disagree with you. MarnetteD | Talk 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you seriously arguing that the BBC's official website is an unreliable source? As for your citation to the Fourth Doctor Handbook, as far as I can tell the extent of your support there is the following sentence: "Although she did not join the TARDIS crew until the following story, the Keeper of Traken saw the introduction of Nyssa." This is a slender reed to base the claim that she is not a companion in this episode, based on the awkward equation of "the TARDIS crew" and "Companion." On those grounds Astrid could be excluded, but she is clearly not, nor are the UNIT companions, who are counted in numerous sources.

Your hardline reversion of a cited claim, to a reliable source, is at best idiotic, and at worst a flat-out violation of policy. Do not remove sourced material relevant to the article. Period. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just like to point out just because something is from a reliable source, it doesn't necessarily mean that the information is correct--particularly if other reliable sources state things differently. We have to think critically, otherwise we might fall into the trap of cherry picking sources. DonQuixote (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no. That is not policy, nor anything even resembling policy. If a claim is sourced, and one can go to the source and verify that the source supports the claim, it is verifiable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability involves checking multiple sources not just a single source. DonQuixote (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you're just making policy up now. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Note the singular there. Second of all, even if the citation of a piece of information to multiple sources were policy, I've done so here, noting that the listing is disputed. Of course, nobody has actually presented a source that says Nyssa is not a companion in this episode, so there's still a fact tag on that claim. So, basically, you're complaining that I'm citing a source that exists and has been cited, as opposed to some magical fantasy source that you want me to cite, even though I've already acknowledged the dispute in the expectation that this magical mystery source exists. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're missing the point. The point is that the definition of verifiability involves checking multiple sources and comparing what they have to say. If you note my comments above, I was raising some caution flags. DonQuixote (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

But if multiple sources disagree, we have to use the one that is known to be most familiar with the subject. By definition, BBC, as the creators of Doctor Who, are more knowledgeable as to who was intended to be a companion than other third-party sources. Unless we have a source that says Johnny Byrne, the writer, did not want her to be a companion, then I see no reason to consider the BBC wrong. The footnote to clarify the disagreement is good enough. SoWhy 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how Mr Byrne could have written Nyssa as a companion since the producers did not cast her as one until after this story was almost completed - his scripts had to be in and finished long before filming began. Also please provide the "multiple sources" that disagree. All the sources that I can find - books, other websites, interviews in magazines and at conventions - agree with the fact that she is not a companion in this story. Only one source has been provided that does not jibe with this info. By the way the BBC did not create DW. Verity Lambert, Sydney Wilson and numerous writers, technicians and actors created it. Their records and memories are the only reliable resources that shoul be used. MarnetteD | Talk 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Be careful when you say "the BBC", since it's not a single entity as such. So, by definition the BBC is an amorphous blob which hasn't been a constant entity for twenty-plus years. The only thing we can factually say is the "Doctor Who website" which is a recent creation compared to, say, DWM. Anyway, just commenting that we should be careful. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But that's why WP:V says it's not about truth but verifiability. Yes, the BBC might be wrong, but unless it's not reliable, it is the source that should know about these kind of things. I think the current solution satisfies both sides without doubting this status. Regards SoWhy 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note of caution, verifiability is not about citing a single source. Verifiability is about citing multiple sources. If, for the sake of argument, only one source states something (even if it is the BBC), then it is not verifiable. That's what I mean by saying that we should be careful. DonQuixote (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if Byrne did say she was not a companion (I believe the decision to make her a regular was made after the episode was in the can, so to speak), authorial intent is not the only perspective. The nature of what a companion is is not a straightforward and unitary definition that we can check stories against. It's a subject of debate. The issue is that we should acknowledge the debate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The BBC website is written, as often as not, by someone who has not even watched the show. There is no reason to consider it reliable. See this edit summary [1] which was followed up by this discussion [2] to see how the "official" BBC information was wrong and flew in the face of what the creators of the show did. How this one unreliable source can override the intentions of the people who created the show has not been explained. Also, you have yet to provide any other source then this one small section that backs up your assertion that there are "multiple sources" that disagree. Numerous interviews with those involved, including Sarah Sutton, over the years have all stated the same facts. She was contracted to film one story. Thus she was not a companion during the scripting stage. Only during the later stages of the filming was the idea mooted of her joining the show. Then a new contract was signed and she joined the Tardis crew during the next story (not at the beginning of it though since she is not even in episode one). Your reentering an unverified edit with its incorrect footnote before WP:CONSENSUS was reached is unfortunate. Your incivilty is also unneeded. MarnetteD | Talk 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea that authorial intent (considered broadly here to include Byrne, Sutton, etc) is the lone perspective is flawed. As for your assertion that the BBC is not a reliable source... ummm... no. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please provide sources the back up your claim that the BBC website was written by people who are not knowledgeable of the subject. Remember that the fact that other sources disagree do not make a source unreliable. It's quite possible that those sources are incorrect and the BBC is correct. If there is such a conflict, then we should use the source that is known to be a.) reliable and b.) by those by definition most knowledgeable of the subject. Conflicting other sources can be mentioned appropriately but they do not cancel out a reliable source unless you can prove the source is unreliable. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the links I gave you will see that I have proved that the BBC's website can be unreiable. Please provide sources that show that the website is written by people that are familiar with the show. Numerous reliable sources - all written before the BBC's current companions section was created all state the same facts as I noted above. Why are they to be ignored. Would you please prove how a website written years after the show was produced is supposed to be more reliable then the people who created the show. No answer has yet been given to the inaccurate statement on the BBC's website saying that Nyssa travelled with the Dr during Keeper - when a viewing of the story proves that this does not occur. Phil when you are going to provide more then one source that backs up yoour incorrect assertion? Also when are you going to correct your inaccurate footnote? MarnetteD | Talk 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They do not prove this. The fact that it's written after your sources does not make your sources more correct. But on the other hand, the BBC has always been accepted as a reliable source so the burden of proof is yours to prove that it's not in this case. After all, the BBC created the show, not single people. They are the authority on canon issues, not writers or directors. It's like with Star Wars canon: Different people write different stuff but George Lucas decides what is canon and what not. The same applies here: As the ones owning the intellectual rights, it's safe to assume that the BBC's information is able to decide such canon questions rather than other people, even if the latter's sources are older or written by people familiar to the show. I'd prefer it if you stopped using the words "correct" and "incorrect", because it's not about truth... Regards SoWhy 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're just being silly here - the BBC website is, apparently, despite all intuitive evidence, unreliable because... you don't like what it says? Some further checking, based wholly on whats in my library here - the back of the VHS release of Keeper of Traken describes Nyssa as a "new assistant for the Doctor." Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Citing the BBC as if it were the definitive source is severely flawed--particularly when you're just referring to a small portion of the website which is itself just a web version of one published source (rather than an original work by the BBC). Actually, that's the only thing I'm objecting to (and I have no interest in getting involved in the infobox debate). DonQuixote (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not citing it as "the definitive source." I'm citing it as a source. I'm happy to cite more sources. Which ones do you have in mind? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I just point out that in all this, we're losing Matthew Waterhouse as Adric from the Companion section of the infobox? It only seems to accept one companion at a time - weebiloobil (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. Ah, I see the issue. I'll go fix it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, I'm only raising some caution flags. DonQuixote (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on this conversation Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#The Brigadier.2FYates.2FBenton - companions.3F It looks like the only source used for including her here is not being applied consistently, ie The Brig and Benton have not been moved to the companion section of the infoboxes for their 3rd Doctor stories. So I think that we can return to the stated intent of the creators of this story. There are many far more reliable sources that state that she does not become a companion until the next story. MarnetteD | Talk 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)