Talk:The Time of the Doctor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Twelfth Doctor

Do we have any confirmation that Doctor #12 will appeaf or is this just presumtionsbased off Doctor #11's regeneration? Goodsmudge^(Talk) 07:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that this was confirmed by Steven Moffat but I can't find a source at the moment. Bestbaggiesfan (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No references

It will feature the final regular appearance of Matt Smith as the Eleventh Doctor and the first regular appearance of Peter Capaldi as the Twelfth Doctor following his brief cameo in "The Day of the Doctor". This episode is the first Christmas special to feature multiple monsters, including the Cybermen, Silence, Daleks, and Weeping Angels.

"The Time of the Doctor" is the third and final instalment in a loose trilogy of episodes, following "The Name of the Doctor" and "The Day of the Doctor," which together serve as the Eleventh Doctor's swan song. The episode addresses numerous plot threads developed over the course of Smith's tenure, including the prophecy of the Silence and the Doctor's fate on the planet Trenzalore. "The Time of the Doctor" is also the 800th individual episode of Doctor Who, the ninth Christmas special since the show's 2005 revival, and Matt Smith's fourth and final Christmas Special as the Eleventh Doctor.

And not a single reference in all of that. jSmith11 (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead is typically allowed to go unreferenced, so long as the body of the article is referenced for those same facts.Zythe (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No on-screen director credit?

I couldn't see any on-screen credit for the director, Jamie Payne. David (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's there, about 30 seconds after the opening-going-through-the-vortex bit. Just before it says 'Produced by Marcus Wilson'. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 20:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Just after, you mean. http://imgur.com/dQCmEL5 220.245.146.235 (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

New regeneration, or cycle of regenerations?

From the plot summary: "the Time Lords grant the Doctor a new cycle of regenerations"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't actually stated that the doctor has a whole new cycle. We only know that he has at least this one. Shouldn't this point be rewritten to be nonspecific? Something like - "the Time Lords grant the Doctor additional regeneration energy" (only better :)

86.20.15.247 (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this is going to be the next giant debate that never ends, but in the show it was specifically mentioned with the word "cycle". Not that this will stop anyone from saying that it's not conclusive enough, we have to wait until the next episode, yadda yadda. As far as I'm concerned, the terminology used in the show is permissible here. Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you're right - I just checked on BBC iPlayer and he does say "new regeneration cycle". My mistake. Still, maybe the plot summary should say "new regeneration cycle" instead of "new cycle of regenerations"? Then it is definitely accurate but can still be interpreted either way? 86.20.15.247 (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is at least one source confirming the 'new regeneration cycle'. More will likely be coming out soon. I'm sure Moffat will talk about it now that the episode has aired. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 22:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Small point: those two phrases mean the exact same thing. Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Another point is that the "name-breaker" at the end of "The Name of the Doctor" is played by John Hurt hinting of more than one face regained by the time lord energy, for otherwise he would have taken the part of the next doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.209.201 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC) I take this back, I just watched the "The Day of The Doctor" and understand my mistake.94.159.209.201 (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tasha Lem vs. Melody Pond

I find several comments thrown from Tasha to the doctor and from the doctor to Tasha hinting that she is in fact a regeneration of River Song (kissing her, calling her a psychopath, her being able to fly the tardis). Should this be addressed in this article? 94.159.209.201 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hinting. Not confirming. 220.245.146.235 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Also problematic what with River being sort-of dead, and all her incarnations accounted for. Tasha also implied she'd never seen Eleven's body before. 212.9.31.12 (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Its her, duh? But yes no reliable source for confirmation. Also Clara's grandmother (Gram) at Christmas dinner is in fact Amy Pond. Its all spelled out if you are really looking.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that is complete speculation that I've never heard before. Everyone, please note that if you add anything about Tasha Lem being River Song or... Gram being Amy Pond, it will be removed immediately, unless there is a very reliable source to go with it (a confirmation from Steven Moffat, a confirmation from a future episode, etc.). -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that Clara's Gran being Amy Pond was simply noted because they had the same ring. Poppycock, if you ask me. 220.245.146.235 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Warbo Entertainment

In the review section, I notice there is an entire paragraph in regard to the thoughts of "Warbo Entertainment." Not being familiar with them, I did research and found this to be a a Youtube Site. Unless my research has been in error, I do not think this meets any criteria of the Notability Requirements. I will await input for another 24-48 hours, and if nothing comes up, will delete the paragraph. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

matt-smith-is-the-13th-doctor

I found a reliable(ish) source on more information regarding the Doctor's regenerations, but I'm not sure where to put it. It says that Matt Smith is the Thirteenth Doctor/incarnation/regeneration jSmith11 (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that reliable. Firstly, Moffat is famously loose with the truth in interviews when pressed for information like this. Secondly, the whole "13th" thing seems to be IGN's/The Mirror's extrapolation more than anything else. So, in answer to your conundrum, I think the place to put it is here, on the Talk page. 212.9.31.12 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So wait until afer the special? jSmith11 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Matt Smith's Doctor is the thirteenth /regeneration/ of the Time Lord commonly known as The Doctor, but only the eleventh /regeneration/ to call himself The Doctor (hence, The Eleventh Doctor), the other two being the 'Meta-Crisis' and the 'War Doctor'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.146.235 (talk • contribs) 10:00, December 16, 2013‎

New Doctor, new regeneration cycle – one used, 11 to go? Dsalt (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The regeneration count is clearly spelled out by the 11th Doctor in this episode: 12 regenerations, therefore 13 faces. He points out that one of the "faces" was that of the War Doctor (John Hurt), and another regeneration occurred when the 10th Doctor (David Tenant) used regeneration energy to "come back" with the same face (quote "vanity issues with that one"). 11 points out to Clara in the belltower in Christmas that this adds up to his total usage of 12 regenerations. *SPOILERS* At the end of this episode, the Time Lords send a bolt of regeneration energy through the Crack in order to give the Doctor another life.

So, in answer to the above question, Matt Smith is the 13th incarnation, the 12th face of the doctor, and canonically the 11th regeneration to call himself "The Doctor". The characters will continue to be numbered without counting John Hurt and David Tenant version 1.5... 220.239.72.142 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013

Tasha Lem did not ask the Doctor to go down. she stated that everyone was too afraid to go down first. to which to doctor replied that he wasn't and she said that's what she hoped he would say. 68.102.67.161 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section appears to be a staging ground for fandom to duke it out on whether the show is good or bad. People keep altering the "generally positive reviews" to "generally mixed reviews". At the moment places like IMDB have it at like 80% positive, so I think "mixed" is very misleadingShaolindoctorwho (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming a problem. There seems to be disagreement over whether it was mixed or generally positive. Right now the only place i can find with any kind of average is IMDB (which has it over 80% currently). Remember we can't do original research in these articles. So someone needs to find reliable sources definitively stating what the review consensus was, and not use it to impose their own view of the show. Shaolindoctorwho (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

People keep changing it to "mixed reviews" but this does not match what pages like IMDB are indicating. I believe "generally positive" is more accurate. I also think the article is problematic because it leads with critical reviews and has far too many reviewsvas well. This really needs to be reduced and people need to stop using the article to wage fan wars. Shaolindoctorwho (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again the receptoin has been changed from positive to mixed, but this claim is not supported by reliable siurces. I request that the editors review and protect the page.Shaolindoctorwho (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The IMDB figure is based on user ratings, rather than a summary of reviews. It can't be used to reference the response of critics. In looking at the professional reviews online, "mixed" seems the best word to describe them - there are a couple of positive reviews, some very negative ones to balance them out, and a whole lot of "some bits were bad, some good" reviews. On Twitch, the reviewer opens with "Opinions appear to be divided when it comes to 'The Time of the Doctor'", [1], which is certainly the impression I'm getting from reviews. That said, I'm just as happy if we say nothing - how about we just remove that line for now, until a meta review source has something to offer? - Bilby (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to remove the line for now and when rotten tomatoes (which does provide an a erage of real reviews) actually has a substantial number of entries, refer to that. I think the movie entries on wikipedia generaly do a better job of this, and doctor who episodes too frequently fall to postitive or negative fandom. I don't think we as editors should be making the judgement of whether it was positive, mixed, or mixed to positive ourselves (just to highlight the problem, i am also currently looking at reviews and have a very different impression than you (i would say they are generally positive, with a handful of notable negative reviews). Not saying your wrong, just that it is not a reliable way to gauge reviewer consensus. Shaolindoctorwho (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I write "positive to mixed". Haven't looked up this one myself but the last time I looked at the article it seemed mostly positive. Lots of reviews are fine as long as they are reliable (as in, not fan sources) but they should be brief. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As others have noticed, this section should not read that the episode received "mixed" reviews. The majority of legitimate entertainment news sites online gave it overall positive reviews, after few criticisms. Negative reviews are coming mostly from blogs with little journalistic credibility. Hypable is a blog written by fans, so I don’t think Marama Whyte’s review is substantial enough to include -- it’s as if someone is fishing for bad reviews of this episode and fan reviews shouldn't really count. Cherwell is a student newspaper and the author has only one other article to his name. This should either read that TTOTD received positive reviews or I've eliminated that line entirely, as it was omitted in David Tennant's last episode The End of Time -- no indication of a positive, negative, or mixed consensus was given for that episode. Though no consensus is yet reached, TTOTD holds an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. Oxford24 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Weights, you repeatedly put back negative quotes from opinion blogs, ignoring the discussion here. The Reception section is for reviews from legitimate news sources, because anyone can write an opinion and post a blog. Even though the mainstream reviews were positive you insist on saying the reviews were mixed (based on negative bloggers, again ignoring the discussion), not even letting it go without a consensus label of "mixed". The main review from The Telegraph has been noted and you continue to add a negative opinion blogpost. Please stop changing this section. Oxford24 (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Weights, 176.27.228.253, and other new user accounts(same language, same additions every time) is trolling Broadcast and Reception on this article repeatedly and ignoring the talk page. Several new puppet accounts have been used solely to add the same negative fan reviews and make the reaction “mixed”. As discussed in the talk section and edit comments, it’s not appropriate to include any source one chooses in the Reception section. It should be limited to professional writers at established entertainment/news websites and magazines, under the reliable sources guidelines. If we include every fan who posted an opinion, the Review/Reception section would be 80 paragraphs long and every movie and episode of anything would have a “mixed reaction” It is implied this is reaction from professional critics. Man of Steel, with a 55% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, has a mixed reaction. TTOTD reaction has been mainly positive. Several users have talked about this in edit comments and talk.

Nearly all professional, legitimate feedback has been positive, if you do an internet search. He is including fan sites where anyone can post (quoting Hypable is equivalent to quoting youtube comments), a student newspaper writer (with only one other article, in fact), an opinion blog from The Telegraph after the official review has been quoted, repeatedly saying the reviews were mixed, trying to single out criticism in reviews that are 90% positive. He even moved the 86% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, which are only professional reviewers, from the beginning where it usually goes to the bottom of a random paragraph. This person has a personal hatred for the episode and contrary to all discussion will not stop tainting the article that way. As soon as semi-protection expired a new user, 176.27.228.253, made the same edits he’s been making over and over. The 274 word opinion post from James Delingpole trashing the show, that he repeatedly tries to include (see edit history), is listed under http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk, where there are dozens of bloggers; whereas the official review from The Telegraph by Tim Martin is listed under Culture/TV and Radio -- as it is in any major news source such as The Guardian. He has shortened, moved or edited mine and other editors’ text to reflect a negative reaction. If you look at the talk page and edit history, this behavior has been going on for a while, with the general feeling from users that the negative reviews are from questionable sources. I am taking this issue to the edit warring notice board.Oxford24 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the handling of this issue. For pretty much every story there is variable reception from so many people, but fan sources are not reliable for our purposes here, unless there is journalistic research involved (polls, etc are worth mentioning). Glimmer721 ^talk 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Oxford24 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oxford, 176.27.228.253 has also been heavly editing the clara and rose wikipages. Shaolindoctorwho (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Those edits have been reverted by someone else, thanks. 94.4.192.36, among others, has made only Doctor Who edits since they were created in the past few weeks. 109.151.156.130 has only one edit, to Clara Oswald's page, that read: "Clara is attacked from just to see what the business about IP addresses are behind and falls from a precipitous height." Some sock puppet preparing to do more damage. They should probably have semi-protection on these Doctor Who pages for a while, they seem to be a favorite target of vandalism. Oxford24 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that about how they characters have been "compared" (like that hasn't happened with companions before) without many notable sources? I've fought it in the past because I fail to see how it's notable. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and they tried to add pictures to reinforce the comparison of Rose and Clara, which is pretty unnecessary -- every new companion is compared to previous ones. And who did they quote? Hypable again. It says right at the top of Hypable's website, "Write your own articles for Hypable". There have been a slew of new accounts editing the pages for Clara, Rose, The Day of the Doctor, The Time of the Doctor etc. since late December.Oxford24 (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Warned. While Anthony Weights repeatedly adds a negative slant to the article, he never participates on talk. If he continues to revert without waiting for consensus he may be blocked. Another admin has restored semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)" Admin has determined these repeated edits, discussed extensively, are not valid. You can continue to add the same scathing fan reviews and change the reception over and over to mixed, or you can go with the user and admin consensus and just LET IT GO. This would be the best solution for anyone editing or reading this page, and even yourself. Oxford24 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Age of The Doctor?

He was over 1200 years old when this adventure started. He spent 300 years on the planet and looked old when his latest companion returned, then long enough on the planet that he looked positively ancient when she returned again. 1800 maybe? (84.236.152.71 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

Thanks for your analysis, but we can only accept such from reliable sources and thus can't include any of that in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

New regeneration cycles

A new series of 12 regenerations - or just one more? (Or intentionally ambiguous?) 128.127.29.19 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But - having a new 'narrator character in the Tardis' might be interesting. This has been done - Blakes 7, and Taggart managed without the title character, while Midsomer Murders had a change of detectives (but more the subject of fanficcery speculation than WP). 128.127.29.19 (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)