Talk:The Next Doctor

Past Doctors

As the episode featured a brief apperance of every past doctor should this be mentioned in the main article {Ucebaggie (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)}.

It is mentioned, however is it really necessary to reference from which story each of the previous Doctor's head shots are from? 123.50.138.2 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this sort of thing is referenced for many shows, especially Doctor Who.

70.88.213.74 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the clips of the past Doctors, could someone tell this American who has yet to see the episode whether or not the clips of the First and Second Doctors are colorized or not? 70.88.213.74 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact all the doctors appear in black and white (sepia more accurately) magnius (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Isnt it a mistake thatd 3rd and 9th doctora are visiblke in this short scene? they both never had met the cybermen, and for the same reason the 3rd doctor was omitted in a simiar scene of Earthshock" --Münzberg (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Russell T Davies source

Russell T Davies is the writer of this episode.

Scroll down to the making histroy section as the very bottom!

Thanks All Grown Up! Defender 02:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dervla Kirwan?

I'm sorry but the woman in the trailer looks infinitly more like Miranda Richardson than Dervla Kirwan. Is there any official source, other than the brief half second clip in the trailer that it is either Kirwan or Richardson? If not this should be removed.

It's definitely not Miranda Richardson:) But all we have is the trailer so far; that's one of the reasons why the article is at AFD.Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sun says it's Kirwan, and I've added that as a source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Briggs

Is there any source to confirm that Nick Briggs is going to voice them? -- I mean, surely any bloke could do a cyber-voice! Just because Nick Briggs did it in 2006 isnt really a good enough reason to state he's going to do it now... All Grown Up! Defender 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably another case of OR. It can be removed unless someone has a source. --Cameron* 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree find a source for it or it will be removed, thats why the cybermen want to delete this article, not enough sources--Lerdthenerd (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Briggs sneakily confirmed it when he talked to Digital Spy about doing the Dalek voices [1] (full of "well, if they did" because he couldn't give it away). Sceptre ^(talk) 18:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good enough source to me! All Grown Up! Defender 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he doesn't really confirm 100% but I suppose it is good enough for now. --Cameron* 12:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Parallel Cybermen

Is there any reason (apart from looks) to suppose that these are parallel-earth cybermen and not the original continuity variety making a first (live) appearance? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they spot the Cybus-Logo from the parallel universe, but details are nonexistent. Currently there is no reason to suppose anything about them at all that wouldn't be OR. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cybus logo on their chest-unit is reason enough. And in an interview on This Morning, Russell T Davies said that he'll only use the parallel earth Cybermen because quote "we can do anything we like with them, we can take them in any direction" - Well something like that anyway! They are 100% parallel earth Cybermen, that I can assure you :-) All Grown Up! Defender 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I was hopeful. Although RTD is no longer the top man, he is the writer of this one - so anything is possible. I missed the logos though. It's not a big deal :) --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Cybus logo isn't enough. It could stand for "Cybermen" in our universe. True, our Cybermen have never had a chest logo before, but they did have a rather distinctive Cyberlogo on their tombs in Tomb of the Cybermen. As for the This Morning interview, remember that this is the man who said that Rose Tyler would never return to Doctor Who and that he had no plans to bring back the Master.

Finally, a set report on doctorwhoforum.com (not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, but still evidence) says that the Cybermen say that the Doctor's "physical appearance does not match the Cybermen's visual record", which would tend to suggest that these are Cybermen from our universe. Given that, we really shouldn't say anything about them being parallel universe Cybermen without solid evidence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the parallel Cybermen saw him, too. Even if the ones who saw him directly died/were destroyed, they could have downloaded his image to some sort of data bank, say, that all of the Cybermen could access. But I prefer the theory below myself. Alinnisawest (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The current rumour in the Doctor Who forum is that... move mouse over this red link to reveal possible spoiler! -- All Grown Up! Defender 14:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Children In Need - Preview Clip

with the clip about to be shown on 14 November 2008, we could get the offical charcter names so prehaps we could find out who David Morrisey is to play, if they add credits on the preview clip {Ucebaggie (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)}.

I doubt that they would give away an spoilers a whole month early in a preview, I think the mystery will remain until Christmas Day. magnius (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jackson's suit

I'm not sure, but wasn't this briefly shown in the Christmas Invasion? Back when the Doctor tried to decide what to wear next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.85.225 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

5.X code

Is there are source for this?

I think it's probably a guess based on the code for previous Christmas specials.Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

DWM have confirmed the code as 4.14 along with the production codes for the 4 specials in 2009 {Ucebaggie (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)}

Rumoured title

Hi guys,

The (rumoured) title for this episode is: Ghost in the Machine. Although not certain, it is highly likely that this will be the title.

It will reportedly be confirmed this Friday at 10:30am.

Is it worth adding this to the article ?

Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.223.152 (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we can't include anything rumoured; we need hard evidence. — Edokter • Talk • 12:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you (think you) know where said confirmation will be? The official website? The Radio Times? If you're right about when it will be confirmed, then whatever title is confirmed can be added very soon - namely at 10.30 on Friday. (It will also mean an article move.) Personally, I expect they'll take their time revealing it, as otherwise they might as well have revealed it on Saturday. The rumoured title Ghosts in the Machines (note the pluralisation of both nouns) was the title of a recent article, quickly deleted for obvious reasons. 90.206.183.202 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible routes for confirmation of the special's title include a BBC press release, a statement on the Doctor Who website, something in the Radio Times, or a news item in Doctor Who Magazine. I'd think the press release most likely (although I have no knowledge of the matter). At any rate, the point is that until there's an official confirmation we can't include it in this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The trailer says "Return Of The Cybermen", could this actually be the title? magnius (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as ours but nothing can be added unless sourced. = ) --Cameron* 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The way it was put in the teaser makes me think it's actually not the title. It was like "The Return" and then it went to a new screen that said "of the Cybermen". If it was the title, I think they'd put it all on one screen at the same time. Although it could be just an attempt to hide it.

But I think they're a bit more inventive than that. Agh, five months until the special?! How will I live?!! Alinnisawest (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been a lot of stories with titles that end with "...of the Cybermen" and "....of the Daleks" so maybe they are following a tradition? magnius (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Chances are, the title will be announced at the end of the Proms Cutaway or during the Who Prom at some point. Ray and jub (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, but something called a Cybershade, a mutant Cyberman, has been mentioned - by Steven Moffat no less! It's in broadsheet newspapers so I assume it's true, and so I've added it to the article. Could the title be (and this is just a guess) The Mutant Shade? (and yes, I know we're not a forum, but that's all you guys are doing - guessing). Digifiend (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note as a regular editor of the Tardis Wikia site. Users are trying to suggest this rumored title there, too, but there is absolutely nothing official about it. I agree we'll likely learn the title at the end of the Proms Cutaway because they always end it with "Doctor Who will return in ...". And I'm willing to bet it won't be Ghosts in the Machine. 23skidoo (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Russell T Davies says in this month's DWM that the title is three words long, the tease. So that would appear to rule out Ghosts in the Machine. He also says it's definitely not Return of the Cybermen. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"the title is three words long and is a "giveaway" " I'll bet it's called "The Other Doctor" magnius (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Is it definitely called The Other Doctor then? magnius (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess not, I thought it was a bit early for the title to be revealed magnius (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tin Drum? What kind of a lame tabloid guess is that? Hardly "Giveaway" is it, we know that the title will be a very big clue to the ploy, so I'll bet my house on The Tin Drum NOT being the title. magnius (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Character Names

Twice in the last 24 hours character names have been added by IP's. This would be great to have but we need a source, so the article's been reverted twice. I've added a comment to the infobox to try and cut this down. Edgepedia (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have done the same to the first paragraph to cut down the amount of rumoured episode names being added. = ) --Cameron* 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More unsourced material added by an IP has just been removed! Is it time to consider applying for semi-protection? All Grown Up! Defender 22:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought so too but currently it's moderate enough to revert them fast enough anyway. Problem is, semi would be needed until details are known, could be months. Let's see if it gets worse the next days. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"...all three being new to the series."

That's an absolutely NN statement that I have removed. That applies to any guest star, to be honest, and suggests that one or all of those guest stars are joining the show full-time. That might well be the case for all we know, but until something official is announced, it's a nonsense phrase that we don't need. As an aside I notice the number of Morrissey-as-new-Doctor rumors has dropped since the news reports that Tennant is expected to re-up for 2010... 23skidoo (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the do not have established characters. For example, their appearing in the special is different than if Billie Piper were going to be in it. Perhaps you have a better way of saying it, but saying these are new characters to the series (even if they only appear for one show) is not an empty statement. It is useful to the occassional Who watcher to know that these are new characters and not previously recurring roles. Dragons flight (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess what 23skidoo is saying is that the previous wording implied them to become regulars and that would be OR and speculation as we have no source for that. I think the your phrasing, Dragons flight, is better but still implies something. I have changed the sentence to "David Tennant will star as the Tenth Doctor alongside Dervla Kirwan, Velile Tshabalala and David Morrissey." now which states all the facts but does not imply anything about new characters that may become regulars. So#Why 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit still fails to convey that these actors are not already recurring characters, which is the point I am trying to get across. It is useful to tell people that they will be playing roles that are new. Dragons flight (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As 23skidoo points out quite correctly, this applies to any guest star. We cannot go around and change every article about every episode to include a sentence like "XXX plays a new character as a guest star". Every guest star is new, so there is more sense in only including those that are in fact recurring. Your edit implies that those characters are "new to the show", i.e. will recur later on. We have no source for that. I have no removed the sentence as it's not important to the article as the guest stars are already listed in the infobox. We can re-add it once we reached consensus how to phrase it. I think currently your opinion is in the minority but I think if you insist on including it, we should request comment from the other participants of WP:DW. So#Why 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In other articles, we wouldn't have to because we could talk about their roles. In this article, all we can say is that they are new and hence that's what we should be conveying to people. Dragons flight (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't read "new characters" as implying they will recur. Maybe that's just me, but you seem to be asserting an implication, that for me isn't even there. Perhaps you can suggest a wording that addresses my point without being confusing to you? I'm not sure how to do it since for me the wording already seems fine. Dragons flight (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, we're rather desperately scratching round for anything to say about this episode at the moment, aren't we? It doesn't seem worth including to me. We have practically nothing to go on; we don't know if any of these characters are one-offs or recurring. Let's just leave it out for now. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

premièred at Comic-Con International: San Diego 2008,

That's odd. They premiered a trailer in America? But it's a British show! Is this the first time that's ever happened? If it is, I'd say that's notable and should be mentioned. Digifiend (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the first time I can think of in the new series - however, The Five Doctors was aired in the US before the UK (it aired on 23 November 1983 on some PBS stations in the US) Etron81 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mutant Cyberman (Cybershade)

The Daily Telegraph article is quoting an 'insider' on this. Is is a reliable source? Edgepedia (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is a RS. Whether their sources are, we cannot judge. We do not have all the facts to do so. So we rely on the fact that they are reliable. Remember WP:V's credo: "Verifiability, not truth" :-) So#Why 10:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that 'source' reliable enough to state Cybershade as fact? I wouldn't have though so as I have seen other 'sources' calling it Cyberwraith magnius (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We had some rumors and forum- /blog-entries as to "Cyberwraith" but no reliable source, while the Daily Telegraph explicitly calls it "Cybershade"[2] and the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source without doubt. As I said, it might be wrong, but that's not the point to care about. So#Why 13:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Special Information

I was looking up pictures of sonic screwdrivers and I found this bit of information:

2/08/2008
Mutant Cybermen in Christmas Special
Both The Sun and The Telegraph are reporting that in the Doctor Who Christmas Special 2008, the Doctor will face mutated versions of the Cybermen, apparently called Cybershades. A BBC insiders says:
"Like we did with the Daleks, we've taken the original robot and made it a bit more sinister. The Cybershade is a mutant with some of the looks of the Cybermen - but it is a much darker creation. Fans always want something new. Just wheeling out Cybermen again would be tame."
Thanks to Mark from Tardis and Torchwood Treasures for the quote!
posted by crmhpfan at 14:37 1 comments > post a comment!"
I found it at this link for those interested:Totally Torchwood at Blogspot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.144.36 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RTD may be gay, but he's not so bad that he gives the villains names as camp as that. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean "Cybershade"? Well, we do have a reliable source claiming so...it is in the article already... So#Why ^{review me!} 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Will this stop all the vandalism then? If I come up with any leads I will post them in here and let someone else decide whether too add them or not :) magnius (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It will stop people from moving the page around on a rumor, which is tedious and creates unnecessary articles that have to be deleted by an admin afterwards, so I am glad that Horologium move-protected it. It will surely not stop the addition of rumors to the article itself but we could control that until now so we will probably be able to do so in the future.

You are welcome to post anything about the title that might be helpful here of course (maybe in a new section). If we find a reliable source to claim the title we can always as an admin to remove the protection. There are several on the WikiProject after all :-) So#Why ^{review me!} 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Something not quite right about the credits

Nicholas Briggs – Cybermen voices Paul Kasey – Cyberman

Looks slightly odd (at least it confuses me...which admittedly isn't all that difficult!). Would somebody clarify? Does this need changing, or is it only me that it confuses? --Cameron* 10:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing? We have a man in a suit, and another man doing the voice, rather like Darth Vader. magnius (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, simple explanations are ample for simple people. So Paul Kasey is playing one of many cybermen? What's so special about him though? There are many cybermen but only one actor is listed. Is it because of his multiple appearances in Dr Who or is it just because he is the only sourced actor? Thanks again, --Cameron* 13:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

He tends to play the more "high profile" Cybermen like the Cyber Leader: the actors (or rather extras) playing the more minor Cybermen in the background aren't normally credited on screen. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that'll be it. Hopefully we can credit him as someone high profile like a cyberleader or similar after it has aired. That would make the infobox look nicer...--Cameron* 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sun Cast

The sun reported today that john simm, bernard cribbins, catherine tate and paul mcgann will all return! shall we include a reference of this rumour in here, or in any of the actors/characters page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.242.119 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. The Sun is not regarded a reliable source. — Edokter • Talk • 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Newspapers are not reliable sources"

My edit today was reverted with that ES. Now, If I was citing a tabloid, like the Sun or the Mirror, I'd agree, but this is The Times which AFAIK, generally has quite reliable articles. More important, I think, is the name of the writer - if we can't cite RTD himself, who can we cite? --OZOO (Someone review me... please!) 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids are known for mis-quoting, or making stuff up wholesale. I would be happier with a press release from the BBC personally. That is of course just my opinion, if there is a majority consensus that the source is reliable enough then it can be added, but it is best to consult here first before adding it to the main page :) magnius (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is the Times a Tabloid? And since when does WP:V dictate that we care about whether a reliable source makes stuff up? We write what can be sourced not what is the truth. I think you should add it back when the Times writes that. SoWhy 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't want the article to be filled with idle speculation, there is no point in adding anything that hasn't been 100% confirmed as fact by a source that can be trusted, and I persoanlly don't trust any newspaper. The 'other' Doctor probably is the Xmas 2008 companion, but until it is 100% confirmed it should not be stated as fact in this article, in my opinion of course. magnius (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question is this, an email sent by RTD back in January "the Doctor arrives, hears a damsel in distress, the Doctor steps forward to save her... when this other man [to be played by David Morrissey] swings in, dashing, brilliant, amazing, clever, witty, saves the day. The Doctor says, “Who are you?” The man says, “I'm the Doctor!” Good scene. The Doctor becomes his companion. I like that. Sweet. There will be a beautiful woman too, of course, but really it's the Doctor paired with a new Doctor." So if that is considered a 100% confirmation of Morrissey's role then it can of course be added, but I am still unsure as to whether a 9 month old email could be thought of as a cast iron source, even if it is from RTD. As long as the general feeling is that this is a reliable fact then of course add it :) magnius (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

But the main question remains: Why do you think that The Times, which is definitely a reliable source per WP:RS, does not count as a trusted reliable source here? No matter, how old the E-mail is, it is by the writer and it's all we have. There are no sources saying something else. So if you have no reasons why this should not be treated as reliable as everything else by The Times, we should leave it in there per WP:V ("Verifiability is important, not truth"). Hence I reverted your removal (and fixed the cite tag). Regards SoWhy 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough :) But I would possibly suggest cutting the sources down from four to just a couple as it looks a little messy :) magnius (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Times is definitely a reliable source. The question I have is how literally we should take Davies' remark. If (as has been widely rumoured) this story is a variation on the Big Finish audio "The One Doctor", then Morrissey's character would be a con man impersonating the Doctor, not the real Doctor. Just because the character introduces himself as the Doctor doesn't mean that's who he is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also question the meaning of "the Doctor becomes his companion", and whether that justifies putting Morrissey in the "companion" field. I had read that remark as Davies saying that the real Doctor (our Doctor, played by Tennant) acts like he's following the other Doctor (Morrissey) around and acting as his "companion", rather than saying that the Morrissey Doctor is the companion of the Tennant Doctor in any real sense. I think we should leave the cast box as it was, but add some text about Davies' email remarks from The Times. In fact, I think I'll do that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The way it was as OZOO added it way not implying anything. It said just, that the character by Morrissey is called "The Doctor", nothing else. And the newspaper source is what we have - we should take whatever we can from it but nothing more. It says Morissey is playing a character called "the Doctor" and that "the Doctor" is a companion. So that as what OZOO added. I do not see what there is to debate about. SoWhy 16:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree — when Davies says in the email "the Doctor becomes his companion", the most recent referent for "his" is "the man", that is, the character played by Morrissey. Thus, an expanded version of Davies' statement could be "the Doctor [as played by Tennant] becomes [the new Doctor's] companion." If that is the meaning (as I think it is), it's incorrect to identify Morrissey's character as a companion, when in fact it's the Tennant Doctor who acts as a companion. Putting Morrissey in the "companion" field is supporting one reading of Davies' remarks, and not necessarily the correct one.

I'm also resistant to identfying Morrissey's character as "the Doctor" in the infobox. As I recall The One Doctor, Banto Zame initially identifies himself as "the Doctor", but he's not really, and Christopher Biggins isn't credited as "the Doctor" in the liner notes. This could very easily be similar to that. I really think that we should leave the Morrissey listing as it was, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the Times quotations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we not just wait until the book comes out on 25 September? We have until Christmas to find a reliable source, and seeing as this book is by Russell... If, come September 25, there is no further clarification, we can decide what to do then. Until then, we'd be better off waiting the 7 days rather than risk this article being deleted for unverifiability - weebiloobil (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you don't think that The Times is a reliable source? It is, unarguably. It's the newspaper of record for Britain. I've got some quibbles with the way that some users have interpreted the info in these excerpts, but The Times is unimpeachable as a source, even if it is owned by News Corp. these days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, believe that The Times is a perfect source (what my grandmother would call a 'proper newspaper'). However, with the ambiguity that some people feel, I think it best to wait the week for the book that the newspaper piece is based on to come out. Just because I think The Times is reliable, doesn't mean everyone does, and we all know what extent deletionism has been taken with Doctor Who articles. Best to have the actual book, than just an extract - weebiloobil (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't going to be deleted — it's already survived an AfD, when it had fewer sources than it has now. And really, nobody's going to question the reliability of The Times. It's even listed as one of the examples of reliable news sources at WP:RS#News organizations. With all due respect to Magnius, there is really no ambiguity on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I think we should just write all this under Production and publicity. DonQuixote (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that part of the new material is about the special's plot, and part is about its title, I don't see anything wrong with the current placement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well...it'll probably be moved to Production and publicity after the special airs, anyway. But, if there's going to be some brouhaha about it, that's my suggestion for the moment. If not, then it's probably fine where it is until the special airs. DonQuixote (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) There was a new source added attributed to the Sun in the article, but it looks very strange. I have removed it for now, does someone want to write that "Publicity"-section mentioned above and work it in there? SoWhy 16:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, simplest thing to do was to move the title info to Production (as per other episode/serial articles -- e.g. working title, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, reworked Times info into Production. Probably don't need to quote Davies that much, just paraphrase what he said and then cite the Times article which does quote him. Probably needs to be copyedited a little bit, though. DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What is This?!

OK, I just found this article from the Edinburgh News. Is this for real?! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like more speculation based on the Times (see above section) and Davies' new book. Let's await better sources than that who really talk about the special itself rather than what might be written in that book about it. SoWhy 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Edinburgh News is conflating two unrelated bits from the Times excerpts from The Writer's Tale. Alex Kingston already appeared as River Song, who was implied to be the Doctor's future wife, in Series Four. There's no indication that she's appearing in the Christmas special. And the character played by David Morrissey may be a future Doctor, or someone impersonating the Doctor, or merely a medical doctor who happens to identify himself as "the doctor", or many other possibilities. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hinted at an alternate Doctor"?

I'm a bit unsure about the wording of this sentence:

Pre-broadcast publicity, based on excerpts from Davies's forthcoming book Doctor Who: The Writer's Tale, hinted at an alternate Doctor played by David Morissey with the Tenth Doctor acting as his companion.

That certainly seems to be what Davies wants us (and possibly Benjamin Cook) to think, but it's entirely possible that this is a mislead, and it's also possible to read the email as saying something different. That's why I had put the quotation in, to allow readers to interpret it as they saw fit. It's also worth noting that the removal of the full quote lost some information, such as "workhouse kids as slaves" and "a beautiful woman too, of course". I dunno how big a loss that is, but between those bits and the ambiguity of the "other Doctor" bit, we might be better off with the full quotation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The bit about workhouse kids and the beautiful woman isn't really noteworthy -- at least not as they are without further info. As Davies says, just plain plot stuff. As for "alternate" Doctor...well, that could mean a number of things and is just about as ambiguous as the quote itself. If alternate isn't to your liking, perhaps a little copyedit is in order. DonQuixote (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use Davies' own words, "a new Doctor"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

DM himself calls his character "The Doctor" in an interview here [3], so can that be taken as his name, even if the character is as DM puts it "A man who believes himself to be a Time Lord. Real Doctor or not, it seems to imply that he is at least using the name "The Doctor". magnius (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok...it's been added under "Casting". DonQuixote (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rosita(1)

As requested, I added another source saying that Velile Tshabalala's character is named Rosita. There's also this entry on io9, but I don't know how reliable a source that is. (I think that the local newspaper and the theatre's page should suffice, but your mileage may vary.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

She is quoted as saying her characters name is Rosita, that is in her own words, that is good enough for me, but of course others could disagree magnius (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the West Sussex Gazette has an interview with her, and it was on DoctorWhoNews.com so I reckon that's fine. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(I had added the info, sourced to the West Sussex Gazette, and it was reverted by a user who felt that one local newspaper wasn't a sufficiently reliable source.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we agree that it is, then it is :-) ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Local newspaper or not, if it's reliable, then we can use it. No matter how many people read it. SoWhy 17:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

America?

Okay, I live in America and I don't know when this episode will air over here. So I was just wondering when it will come on. Will it be the same as in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.162.55 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Prabably not the same as the UK because thats just the way it usually works, the country that made it sees it first, but I'm guessing that it would be sometime in early-mid 2009, something like that. 75.165.122.88 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

alright, so since its confirmed to start in the UK in 2010, then its probably going to be 2011 in the US...71.231.203.217 (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC America usually plays Doctor Who episodes one week after they aired on BBC1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.229.243 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but normally the Christmas episode is delayed in the US until the regular series/season begins in the UK. With there being only the 4 movies this year, there's the fear here that they will delay showing any of the movies until they're all made & shown in the UK.

24.128.133.89 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just watched it and the Dr. floats away in a ballon. It did not end the way it says in the article. And such a shame they killed off the Miss Hartigan character. She was something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.201.68 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers in article?

I have a link to an interview with David Morrissey, in it he seems to hint very strongly about his role in the special, and the nature of his character. But this interview, and this quote, are potentially very big spoilers. So my question is, Is it ok to add information that could spoil the plot? magnius (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Wikipedia is not censored for spoilerific content. Please add it! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) There's no problem with spoilers in wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Spoiler for details. The question is is the source reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I know that blogs and The Sun are not, but I don't know the source you've quoted (which does quote David Morrissey), so I'll leave that for others. Edgepedia (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a theater portal and it quotes Morrissey directly, so I think it can be seen as pretty reliable. I would even go as far as to saying that we can replace "TBA" in the infobox with this new information, preferably with a "" around "The Doctor" and a footnote explaining them. What do you think? SoWhy 10:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that "The Doctor" (to our readers) probably sounds like he is going to be the next doctor. How abound "Another Doctor" or simply "A Doctor"? Regards, --Cameron* 12:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

< I think that quoting directly from an interview makes whatever wording used appropriate. We don't actually know whether the obvious interpretation is right or wrong! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Another Doctor" or "A Doctor" would be interpretation of the info. I'd rather suggest using "The Doctor" in quotes ("") and have a foot note explaining the context of the interview. SoWhy 14:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that it's all speculation at this point. It's probably best to wait till the episode airs and we have more facts to thread together. For all we know, he can be a writer called Steven who hallucinates that he's a Time Lord called the Doctor...or not. At least wait for the Radio Times or DWM. DonQuixote (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We currently only have one reliable source which has commented on this, and that is David M. in his interview. So whatever he says, goes, really, I believe. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 06:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tag here. David Morrissey says that this is who he will be playing. We can't decide that sources, which meet WP:RS, are "speculation" just because they are not DWM or Radio Times. Regards SoWhy 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The point was that the source only had a nugget of information around which we can't build up a fountain of information. All we know is that he's a character called The Doctor who believes himself to be a Time Lord. We can't get any cast credit information from that (he could equally be billed as playing Steven with the above information still true). It's better to have TBA (and wait for an official cast/character list) rather than "The Doctor" in quotes with a footnote.

It's along the same lines as why this article wasn't named as "The Next Doctor" until an official release even with Davies' book mentioning "The Next Doctor" as a possible title. DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

< I don't understand the relevance of that, DonQ. The reason we didn't name it "The Next Doctor" on RTD's mention was because he explicitly said that it wasn't definite yet. Now, Morrissey says what he says as a fact, without pointing out that things might change. If we simply quote his line, like it or not, the words of David M are a reliable source. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the reliability of the source(s). However, he's not telling us everything. I'm just saying that we should be a little cautious. There's been lots of instances of nuggets of information being a little misleading (although, I can't remember them off the top of my head -- poor memory and I'm procrastinating from my Astronomy lecture notes). One that my hazy memory recalls is an episode of Star Trek:Deep Space Nine where it was implied that Jonathan Frakes will be playing Will Riker (through teaser trailers) but then it turned out he was playing Tom Riker (a temporal twin/clone). I'm just saying let's be a little cautious until we have the full facts. DonQuixote (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we can quote what it is he says, however he doesn't make it clear exactly what that will be from a factual point of view, in fact he may be being deliberately misleading. As a result I agree that we should leave his roll in the credits as TBA. --Lemming64 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand all this, but suggesting that he's witholding stuff is original research. We have to assume that what he says is accurate and true, simple as that. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing is we have to keep both things in mind. We can quote him as saying what he said, but at the same time we can't assume that he'll be officially credited as "The Doctor" (with quotes and a footnote). So, as mentioned above, we quote what he says and leave his roll in the credits as TBA until we get more info. DonQuixote (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That is OR as well. As long as we have no confirmation that he won't be credited as "The Doctor", we have to use the reliable sources we have. And it tells us, that that is what his character will be called. If new sources prove this source wrong, we can change it. But only then and only if. Not preemptively... Regards SoWhy 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only OR is saying that he will be credited as "The Doctor" or he will not be credite as "The Doctor". The facts are that the cast list hasn't been officially released yet. So without leaning towards one OR or the other, TBA is best. Anyway, just browsing one of my favourite sites, and coincidentally here's something that's somewhat related to my point: [4] -- i.e. jumping to conclusions without all the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonQuixote (talk • contribs)

But the infobox does not claim that those are the names in the credits - otherwise we would have to use "The Doctor" instead of "Tenth Doctor" as well. The inforbox says that this is the character's name - and that is confirmed by the source. Regards SoWhy 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

< Precisely, I agree with SoWhy. Suggesting that while Morrisey says his character may be called the Doctor, the character may not actually be called the Doctor, is simply speculating that a reliable source is wrong. And we cannot do that. While the link to Snopes is (very) mildly amusing, we are not jumping to any conclusion here, other than that David M's information is accurate, and we are required to come to that (very reasonable) conclusion. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I say he should be listed as just "Doctor" in the infobox. That way, we are going with what he said in the interview without implying that he is THE Doctor. U-Mos (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I also think we should postpone changing the infobox until the Children in Need clip on Friday. There's no rush, and that could potentially clear everything up. U-Mos (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that the source is unreliable -- I'm saying that you're reading too much into it.

To quote WP:RS, which you've link to

Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are used, they must be used with extreme caution in order to avoid original research. Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself [i.e. David M's statement]...Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of...conclusion [David M will be credited as The Doctor]...For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources [Radio Times, DWM, or the official primary source itself (the episode)].

And I agree with U-Mos that we should at least wait for the CiN clip. It might shed some light on this...but then again it might not. DonQuixote (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But the problem still remains: Noone claims that this is how he will be credited. While the infobox usually reflects the credits, it's purpose is not to mirror them but to list the characters. Hence "Tenth Doctor" instead of "The Doctor" or "Doctor Who". So why should it be of any importance what he will be credited as? We want to include what the character is called after all... Regards SoWhy 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. We are saying in the infobox, not that the BBC will choose to credit him with those precise words, but merely that those precise words cover his character accurately, which we know, because David M. said them. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps "credited" was a poor choice of words on my part. The problem is "called" has two different meanings. Just because a character may be "called" the Doctor (i.e. referred to as), that doesn't mean that he is a character who is "called" the Doctor (i.e. that's his moniker). Unless he is "credited" as the Doctor in something official (i.e. moniker), then we can't say that he's "called" the Doctor (i.e. moniker). All this is complicated by the fact that he only "believes" himself to be a Time Lord.

The point is that we don't have a full picture of what his character is supposed to be. Will he be like the "The Doctor" in The Empty Child (Dr Constantine), will he be like "Professor Yana" in Utopia (Professor Yana/The Master) or will he be like "Captain Jack Harkness" (Jack Harkness)? Unless we have a full picture, which isn't helped by the secrecy surrounding the production, all we have are assumptions and speculations. Besides, what's the harm in waiting till Christmas when we'll have the full picture rather than posting something today that may or may not be true? Personally, I don't want to jump on the "image on burnt toast" bandwagon. DonQuixote (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum) Besides, the BBC is saying "...appearing as a character called the other Doctor..."[5], so he's called "the other Doctor" from this source. DonQuixote (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DWM issue 402 also says he is playing The Next Doctor. 86.131.242.255 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

CiN preview cleared nothing up. I still say to call him "Doctor". U-Mos (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed my mind. No need for anything until we have a proper name. His identity is a mystery, so it's fine to leave it until after the broadcast if necessary, with of course the explanatory paragraph. U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

His character is not a mystery. David Morrissey's words are a reliable source IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're a reliable source for the article (the current text is good), but I don't think they can be considered definitive for purposes of the infobox. We know that the character calls himself the Doctor, and according to Morrissey he thinks he's a Time Lord — but it's possible that 20 minutes into the episode he finds out he's nothing of the sort, and he'll be credited at the end as "Banto Zame" or "the fake Doctor" or who knows what.

I think we should leave the role Morrissey is playing out of the infobox until we have something definitive, like, say, the Radio Times. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree (well, slightly agree!...) but: firstly, the infobox isn't about what he's credited as - it's about the role he plays, and who his character is. If David Tennant was randomly/mistakenly credited as "Barack Obamala" one episode, the infobox would still note him as the Doctor. Since we have only DM's word for his character, to speculate that he will be "becoming" a different character is OR. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that any such speculation has no place in the article, and I think we're both agreeing that we shouldn't mention any role for Morrissey's character in the infobox. As for the infobox credits, as Jesse Jackson would say, the question is moot. I think I was recalling when we used to have a separate cast listing for each episode/serial, and tried to list the characters as they were listed in the credits — so the first several Doctors were listed as playing "Doctor Who" (or even "Dr. Who" in some stories), changing to "The Doctor" when JN-T became producer, and so forth. But that's all gone now, so I don't know what I'm wittering on about. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot

this section:

The first two minutes of the episode were presented as a preview during the Children in Need 2008 appeal on Friday, 14 November.[17] This is a summary of what was shown:

Following the end to Journey's End the Doctor is travelling alone in the TARDIS and ends up landing in Victorian London. Here he is greeted by a large market set out on what he is told is Christmas Eve, 1851. While admiring the surroundings, the Doctor hears someone that appears to be calling for him. As they continue to shout, the Doctor runs towards the screams where he is greeted by a woman staring at a metal plated doorway from behind which something is trying to escape. The Doctor then tells the woman that he will deal with whatever it is behind the door and that she should run away, but she stays put. As the banging continues another man dressed in elaborate clothing appears and asks the woman for his sonic screwdriver. She hands it to him and a confused Doctor asks who the man is. The man claims that he is 'The Doctor' and that he too is a Time Lord. Both Doctors then point their screwdrivers at the metal gates which burst open revealing what appears to be a bronze Cyberman. Both Doctors say "Allons-y!" and they look at the other with a confused gaze...

The story will be concluded at Christmas 2008.

needs to be removed or vastly reworded as it sounds like an advert/essay. Pro66 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we change it to:

The first two minutes of the episode were exclusively broadcast for the Children in Need evening on November 14 2008.^[source] The Doctor was shown arriving in a Christmas market, 1851, and rushing towards a woman, Rosita, screaming for "The Doctor" - however, she fails to recognise him and acknowledges David Morrisey's characer as the Doctor. This Doctor references the TARDIS, the sonic screwdriver and being a Time Lord, before both Doctors point their sonic screwdrivers at what appears to be a bronze, roaring Cyberman and saying in unison, "Allons-y!"

I think it's a bit better - views? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

thats way better. Pro66 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC) p.s bronze cybermen is called a cybershade

For the "source needed", it was in DWM 402, so you could use that. 86.142.140.239 (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, guys. All fixed now. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The One Doctor

I've removed a sentence saying that it has been "widely speculated" that this story is based on the Big Finish audio adventure The One Doctor. While that is certainly a plausible theory (I've advocated it myself, above) we can't put it in the article without a reliable source such as Doctor Who Magazine or a respectable newspaper like the Times, Guardian or Daily Telegraph. The vast majority of blogs don't reach the threshold of WP:RS, and a Google search of those blogs certainly doesn't.

Personally, I don't expect any official confirmation or denial until after the special airs, because saying "it's based on this Big Finish story" would rather give away the plot. We might be able to mention it if someone like Mark Wright talks about it in his blog (which I think is an RS, because it's published under the aegis of The Stage, a respectable publication). But random blogs and forum discussions aren't good enough, alas. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fake Doctor

When the BBC showed a clip of the doctor Who Christmas Special on the Children In Need show i noticed that the new Doctors sonic screwdriver looks like a normal screwdriver and that the cybershade just looks like a person with a mask an a black rug to cover the body to make it look like a floating head. i know the show isnt real but usually the special affects are a lot better then that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldonald86 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Original Research, plus all we know about cybershade is that its bronze/rusty and have a black rug apart from that not much, it could be a rusty cybermen without the metal body for all we know. But anyways lets keep focus on improving the article. Pro66 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to a picture that backs up the normal screwdriver theory magnius (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed both the theory and the image, sorry. We cannot say if it's a "normal" one just from a picture, that's speculation. It could just be another model or been modified. Regards SoWhy 11:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This might be a bit late in, but yes, I would agree that the doctor could have upgraded his screwdriver. It seems to be more likely because 1) David Tennant is only going to be on for 4 more episodes, so it's important to introduce the next Doctor soon, 2) The Doctor presumably meets River Song in his tenth regeneration, and 3) He gave his screwdriver to River Song, so he would either have to make a new one for her, upgrade his, or both. Cdevon2 (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Revenge of the Cybermen"

I may just be stupid, but was this episode originally called The Revenge of the Cyberman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.193.139 (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No. There was never another sourced title than the current one. The trailer after "Journey's End" had the text "The Return of the Cybermen", but that was just a teaser text. Regards SoWhy 10:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be mixing things up with a half-remembered Fourth Doctor story title - Revenge of the Cybermen. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A caption on Journey's End said "Return of the Cybermen", but that was confirmed as just a teaser title, not an official one. 129.215.149.96 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(Ok someone said that :D 129.215.149.96 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

OK, but I wasn't getting mixed up with the 4th Doctor's serial.

"Time Slot"

it is suggusted that the episode is one for 1 and half hours so it may be a confidental epsiode after the main episode.

Per [6], this episode is on from 6-7 PM, followed by Strictly Come Dancing at 7. There may well be a Confidential, but not on BBC One (it's usually on Three, anyway). Radagast (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"1851 - Boring year"

10th Doctor asks a boy what year and date is - gets reply, responds with a boring year. Makes last few days therfore more interesting: Christmas Eve, 1851 - Library of Congress burns down - anyone think it's worth a mention? Crescent (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, there is no suggestion that it is part of the plot magnius (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus it will qualify for Orginal research as well. Pro66 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides the library isn't located in the UK, so they wouldn't be too bothered! :) --Cameron* 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, the Doctor (one of them) may have a passing mention of this, but I'm sure this would have some mention somewhere. If you looked at the Journey's End trailer, it looks like some scenes are set in a graveyard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.125.135 (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What has a graveyard in London got to do with the Library of Congress burning down? I don't understand why you are linking the two magnius (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they buried the books?Evilgidgit (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was being sarcastic or flippant. After all, 1851 was the year of the Great Exhibition. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Advent(ure) Calendar

Like last year, there's an advent(ure) calendar on the BBC's website. Does this count as pre-broadcast publicity or anything? 90.192.94.131 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just advertising. — Edokter • Talk • 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pocket Watch

A recent issue of Radio Times has shown David Morrissey's Doctor is carrying a pocket watch similar to the ones in "Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood" and "Utopia"/"The Sound of Drums"/"Last of the Time Lords" all from season 3 (as a side note Radio Times is written by the BBC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.76.157 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Similar to" is original research: nothing in the article says that this is deliberately so, so it is speculation to suggest it is a Time Lord object. Stephenb (Talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

From images that I have seen, this is a completely different watch as it does not have markings on it, but we'll find out soon enough. magnius (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nymons

On the bbc doctor who adventure calander , in an interveiw with Russlel, he mentions nymonds in the easter special. There was a nymon in the horns of nymon. Is ts true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.181.122 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Horns of Nimon is mentioned - although I think it was linked more with a "two part climax to the specials", in a discussion with Judie Gardner and RTD. Interview can be found here. Edgepedia (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

US

Is there any source saying when this'll air in the US? --CF90 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Rosita

Where should we put Rosita: as a companion, or as a guest star? I'd be inclined to list her as a guest star, because Rosita is like series 1 Mickey: a companion of a companion, rather than a companion herself. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion with Mickey before, I think we have kept him as a companion. I think Rosita had a larger role than guest star, she did help save the doctor and helped the children escape from the miss Hartegen's workhouse.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason why I said series 1 Mickey; Mickey is a companion in series 2, and arguably in series 4. Jenny had a comparable role, but I don't think we class her as "companion". Sceptre ^(talk) 19:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Support guest star; her role as a companion in an exegetic sense is extremely moot. --Rodhullandemu 19:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, Rodhull. The arguments for her becoming a companion of Ten are extremely weak. tphi (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

But is whether she's ten's companion or the episode's companion make much of a difference? The term companion is given in a lot of articles and on the BBC website, although like Jackson she's clearly not a 'proper companion' she was at least this episode's.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can add is that neither Jackson or Rosita has been added as companions (or even allies) on the official website. That might just mean that they haven't updated that part of the site yet. An official statement or a statement from a secondary reliable source might be helpful in resolving this (a la Astrid). DonQuixote (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say add her as a companion as she went with the Doctor to help him when David Morriseys Character stayed behind. Her character seemed more of a companion than David Morriseys through atleast the first 30 minutes. 86.161.254.105 (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Narratively, Rosita is shown to be Jackson "The Next Doctor" Lake's companion. The Tenth Doctor then joins her as a companion to Jackson "The Next Doctor" Lake. When the truth regarding Lake's identity is revealed, Lake sends Rosita to be the Tenth Doctor's companion rather than himself. Thus, although her tenure as a companion to the Tenth Doctor is brief, she is the Tenth Doctor's companion nonetheless. This is supported by the corresponding Fact File on the official BBC Doctor Who website and by an interview with Velile Tshabala - in response to the statement/question "We know she becomes assistant to both Doctors over the course of the episode, but how?", Tshabala responds "Yeah, she does..." and the interviewer uses the term "companion" elsewhere. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting the episode proper aside for the moment, the sources above state that she's Morrissey's companion. As for the episode itself...actually, I'm not going to touch it because there's nothing solid enough for me to back one way or another (that is, is she like Astrid or is she like Jenny?). DonQuixote (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed "assistant" in the interview. Sorry. DonQuixote (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right - I double checked the BBC source and it only refers to her as the Next Doctor's companion. However, the interview with the actress concerned still stands. As for the episode - there's the scene where Jackson Lake and Rosita are left alone and Lake sends Rosita to assist the Doctor, effectively transferring his companion to the real Doctor. Yes, she only assists the Doctor for, what is it, the last 25 minutes or something, but that still counts as one-off companionship ala Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway, Donna Noble in "The Runaway Bride" and last Christmas's Astrid Peth. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just adding my 3p worth ... Jackson goes into the TARDIS and runs out, looking like he's turned down travelling with the Doctor ... the main dynamic is between the two David's (look at the images on the BBC website) ... however, there's nothing about any new companion on the BBC website. How about no companion? Edgepedia (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a valid position too. Like I said, unless there's an official statement, personally, I'm just going to leave things to you guys. DonQuixote (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think both Jackson Lake and Rosita are to be considered companions in this episode, not just one of them. Regards SoWhy 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The scene in which Jackson Lake says to Rosita something like "Go - he needs someone" (he being the Tenth Doctor) is effectively Lake ruling himself out of being a companion and transferring his companion to the rightful Doctor now his own true identity has been established. Prior to this Rosita was Jackson Lake's companion with the Tenth Doctor becoming his companion too (he says something like "I'm your companion") whilst he assumes Lake is a future incarnation. Lake had companions, Rosita was a companion, first to Lake then to the Doctor. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

But then Lake returns to help and rescue the Doctor and continues at his side. Imho that makes him a companion as well. SoWhy 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people help the Doctor without being companions though. I'd be quite happy to accept Jackson Lake as a one-off companion as well if this was the production team's intention, but as of yet we do not have a source to confirm this - unlike with Velile Tshabalala confirming Rosita's status in an interview. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening titles say "DAVID TENNANT; DAVID MORRISSEY", Morrissey taking the spot occupied by Piper, Tate, Agyeman, Minogue and Davison, which suggests he's either a companion or a secondary Doctor. Since we know he's not, strictly, the latter, I'd say that's fair evidence for Lake being considered a companion. Also, remember whatever we put in this ibx impacts Companion (Doctor Who) DBD 23:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Usually only the Doctor and companions are included in the pre-title credits. SoWhy 23:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the story itself we should look to though and its the Tenth Doctor whom is companion to the "Next Doctor". Devla Kirwin aside, Morrissey is the next big name after Tennant in the cast for this special, so it's not surprising his name made the opening title sequence - it would have looked a bit bare with just Tennant. It may also owe to us still being led in to thinking this man may be some form the real Doctor at this stage in the episode, thus part of Russell T Davies's deception along with the title "The Next Doctor". Seeing Morrissey's name in the credits aids Davies in convincing the audience that this man may be the real Doctor. As I said above, until a source can be found, (like the two interviews with the actress concerned currently cited for Rosita), we cannot list Jackson Lake as a companion. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are interpreting too much into the intentions. After all, there was not a single episode where the title credits listed anyone else except the Doctor and Companion(s). So I think it is fairly safe to assume that their intentions have not changed for this special. SoWhy 23:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't know whether Morrissey's credit is akin to Kylie Minogue's in "Voyage of the Damned" - i.e. companion - or Peter Davison's in "Time Crash" - i.e. alternative Doctor. The title sequence appears at the stage in the episode at which the audience are still being led to think Morrissey may be the Next Doctor. Just for clarity's sake, I can see an argument for Morrissey being counted as a one-off companion as well as Rosita. Personally, I view him as a guest helper but not a companion, but I appreciate that the production staff may regard him as a companion because he helps and if this is the case I would of course subscribe to this view, but I think we should wait until there is confirmation either way. There's no rush after all to determine his status. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I say we follow the billing. Rosita was Jackson's companion, not the Doctor's. This is also confirmed in Confidential. Being the 'next' Doctor is also as close as you're going to get as a companion. — Edokter • Talk • 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I watched Confidential - was it confirmed that she was not the Tenth Doctor's companion? Or was it confirmed that she is Jackson's? They're not mutually exclusive. I'll have to rewatch it - I was watching the 4.00 a.m. repeat so was tired at the time and may have missed something. As I have noted, we cannot confirm the meaning behind the billing - yes it follows the usual pattern, but "Time Crash" offers precedent for change to this. At that stage in the episode, Jackson was more akin to an alternative Doctor to the Tenth Doctor as Peter Davison's Fifth Doctor was to the Tenth Doctor in "Time Crash". Two interviews with Tshabalala suggest she is under the impression Rosita was a companion to "both" Doctors. The only thing I've read that might mean that Morrissey thinks this re. Jackson is his statement "it was Kylie last year and me this year!" found here - however, the question he is answering is only related to appearing in Doctor Who not to being a companion, so he may be saying Kylie guested last year and this year it is me guesting, not necessarily that he is fulfilling the companion role. Tshabalala's interviews reference the term "companion". Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but to whom? If she is a companion (to Tennant), why wasn't she billed as such? — Edokter • Talk • 01:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Because she's not very famous - (consider this was on Christmas Day, I know relative unknowns have occupied this spot before but Morrissey is more of a draw for casual viewers) - and her tenure as a companion to the Tenth Doctor was very brief - the briefest ever of any companion, although that doesn't mean it didn't exist, especially given that specials have featured one-offs before. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, in the Digital Spy interview - Q: "We know she becomes assistant to both Doctors over the course of the episode, but how?" A: "Yeah, she does..." For a long time "assistant" and "companion" (really a fan constructed term) have been interchangeable, especially in the wider media. I'm sure past cast and crew have also used the term "assistant". I've got a Doctor Who puzzle book up in the loft somewhere with a companions wordsearch. All the companions are listed (even Sara Kingdom), but Liz Shaw and Jo Grant are under a seperate section "Assistants" by virtue of them having been appointed to the Doctor by UNIT. Now, fandom regard Liz and Jo as companions with no delineation. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One last thing - the lead for the Telegraph interview - "Robert Collins meets Velile Tshabalala, the new assistant to not one but two Doctors in the Doctor Who Christmas special." Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Assistent" is not "Companion". The script excerpt (for which I mistook the date) actually proves that Morrisey is the actual companion. So I moved that ref to the infobox. Companions MUST be billed as such, or they are not a companion. BTW. Billy Piper was't that famous either, bot got main billing nontheless. — Edokter • Talk • 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And another point; while debating Rosita as a companion is one thing, noone contests Morrisey asthe Doctor's companion, so please stop removing him form the article and the template. — Edokter • Talk • 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

Wikipedia does not run on consensus, rather facts - and I am contesting his status as the Doctor's companion, so to say no one is, is incorrect. All I'm asking for is a source. As stated, I'm perfectly willing to accept Jackson Lake is a companion. I just want proof. Sorry, where's the script excerpt you refer to above? I thought you'd mistaken the book extract date. I haven't seen the script extract. Please could you direct me to the link? It seems I've overlooked it. And who determined companions must be billed as such in order to be one? No actors were credited in the opening sequences in the classic series, save for the Doctor's face and in Doctor Who in 1996. That does not mean Susan, Harry and Kamelion don't count. Yes, "new Who" has adopted this style, but I say again, "Time Crash" has set precedent that this can be changed and on this occassion it makes sense to try and trick the audience into thinking Morrissey is literally the Next Doctor - such billing is a tool in achieving this aim. Further, unlike say Star Trek series where their ranks are shown along with character names, Billie Piper, Freema Agyeman, Catherine Tate et al. have not been credited "Billie Piper as Rose, companion" etc., merely "Billie Piper". Taking the opening sequences in "new Who" on their own, we can only say the actors are important to the series with logic dictating the first name shown is the titular Doctor. A casual viewer may not be aware that the next name is usually the person playing the "companion" - further they may have no notion of this term in the context of Doctor Who, although logic would probably say they're a series regular or important guest star. Nor is opening sequence billing proportionate to relative importance of a character to the narrative. Think "Love & Monsters", "Blink" and "Midnight" - the companions do very little in these stories. Oh and Bruno Langley never got an opening title credit despite playing companion Adam Mitchell. Re. Billie Piper's fame - Piper had been a tabloid favourite for years prior to "Rose" through her drinking years with then husband Chris Evans and prior to that had been the youngest female solo artist in UK chart history to debut at Number One, with her second single also entering at Number One, (so says Top of the Pops 2) and she had a string of other hits. She may not have been a household name to the new child audience they sought, but Piper was more famous prior to Who than Tshabalala was - I only know that she appeared in the dreadful CBBC show Kerching!. And surely Tshabalala's words count for something? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To summarise, I've offered evidence that Rosita is a companion to both Doctors. This has been edited out of the article with insufficient explanation as to why it is invalid. Thus far, only billing has been put forward as evidence of Jackson being a companion to the Tenth Doctor. I have proposed that on this exceptional occassion billing cannot be accepted as evidence because we cannot ascertain what Russell T Davies's intention was - to bill him as a companion or to bill him as an alternative Doctor. Or both. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I've listed them both as companions to the Tenth Doctor. I have provided sources for Rosita and Jackson is a logical extension from the billing as pointed out by others above. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, but the interview itself isn't enough to justify her being a "companion". The Telegraph article, though, is in the same vein as DWM announcing that Mickey was a companion (unless the Telegraph isn't deemed a reliable source). (On a side note, the only difference between "companion" and "assistant" is that fans prefer, and have helped coin, "companion" over "assistant".) DonQuixote (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely a companion of The Doctor can only be "A Companion" if he/she has actually traveled with him (e.g in the Tardis)? Neither Lake nor Rosita did that. 88.97.41.24 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, see Astrid Peth for example. Regards SoWhy 18:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a fan definition. The production definition is "whomever we choose". DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The excerpt from entertainment.timesonline.co.uk: ...when this other man [to be played by David Morrissey] swings in, dashing, brilliant, amazing, clever, witty, saves the day. The Doctor says, “Who are you?” The man says, “I'm the Doctor!” Good scene. The Doctor becomes his companion. I like that. Sweet. I will pose that consensus is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, so please don't dismiss it like that. The other most important pillar is Verifiability. It is no use citing all other episodes; they have no bearing here. We need to establish companionship for this episode alone, and for the new series, one tell-tale sign is billing. Rosita is a different story. We need an independent (third) source establishing her companionship. Her interview is debatable. But I'm willing to let it stand for now. But we need to be wary to avoid original research here. — Edokter • Talk • 19:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Having just rewatched the episode, I think the key dialogue with regard to establishing Rosita and Jackson as companions to the Tenth Doctor comes at around the 31 minute mark. Up until this point Rosita and the Tenth Doctor have been companions to the "[Next] Doctor". At the 31 minute mark, having just learned his true identity and grieving for his late wife and with the Doctor in pursuit of Cybermen, Jackson says to Rosita, "The Doctor needs help, I learned that much about him. There should be someone at his side. Now go! Go!" Rosita then runs to the Doctor and becomes his companion - as instructed by the man she thought previously to be the Doctor and to whom she was a companion. In effect, Jackson transfers his companion to the rightful Doctor. Albeit only until the end of the story, Rosita is a companion to the Tenth Doctor, her status as such verified by interviews with the actress. Then, around the 35 to 36 minute mark, having composed himself, Jackson comes to the Doctor and Rosita's rescue and declares himself "At your service, Doctor." Jackson Lake - the man who had the Tenth Doctor as his own companion - now becomes a companion to the Tenth Doctor as well as Rosita, his status as such verified by David Morrissey's billing in the opening sequence. At the end of the story, Rosita becomes Jackson's "good friend" and his son's "nurse-maid" and Jackson remains to take care of his son. Thus, it is Rosita that first becomes a companion to the Tenth Doctor when it looks like Jackson is overcome with grief and is not up to the role himself and then Jackson himself becomes a companion to the Tenth Doctor as well when he composes himself, determined to avenge his wife's death and stop the Cybermen and saves the Doctor and Rosita. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of research. Thanks for taking the time. Unless you can find a secondary source that says the same thing, it's also original research. Anyway, just as Edocktor said, we need another source to go along with the Telegraph article. DonQuixote (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

It's ridiculous to call Rosita a companion here; yet another example of technicalities leading to common sense being totally ignored. Rosita was seen in the companion role next to Morrisey's "Doctor". Everyone bar Tennant was a one-episode guest star. The ONLY REASON there is a companion listed at all is Morrisey being credited as a star in the opening titles. That's it. No half-analysed quotes from the episode, no telegraph writer deciding she qualifies, no vague references to Rosita as a "companion" that don't specify any particulars, just pure fact. Because companion, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is the equivalent of the episode's main stars who aren't the Doctor. U-Mos (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not assume 'common sense [is] being totally ignored'. I actually read Rosita was to be companion to the Tenth Doctor prior to the episode's transmission but instead of leaping to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect this, I waited to see if this actually proved to be the case in the episode itself. Indeed, in the first half hour I thought the source must have got this wrong, but sure enough as the episode changes gear half way through and we see Jackson break down after learning the truth, it is Rosita who steps up and fulfills the narrative 'companion' role, eventually joined by Jackson as a fellow companion when he reappears zapping the Cybermen flanking Miss Hartigan and thus saving the Tenth Doctor and Rosita. I finally got round to listening to the accompanying podcast and rewatching Doctor Who Confidential - (I caught the 4.00 a.m. repeat in the morning after Christmas Day and barely took a thing in). Russell T Davies has the following to say re. Rosita: on her name - it is a "Rose/Martha combination of a name, just so that she'd feel like a companion even before she's done anything" (podcast). Davies deliberately gave her the "feel" of a companion prior to "even...[doing] anything" as such. More generally Davies says, "Rosita is designed to be the archetypal companion 'cos when the Doctor meets the Next Doctor he needs to look like the Doctor...In miniature, she's an absolute proper companion and is brave and fights and saves the children..." (Confidential). Yes, Rosita is initially the Next Doctor's companion, but as the actress has confirmed in at least two interviews she ends up helping/assisting both Doctors A.K.A. the real Doctor and Jackson Lake. (I elected not to mention this earlier as it is in original research territory, but when Jackson sends Rosita after the Tenth Doctor, the first things she does are ask questions and run. Yes, loads of characters in Doctor Who do this, but its stereotypical of companions. Anyway, as I said OR territory, hence the brackets.) Tellingly however, it is the Tenth Doctor instructing Rosita what to do as she is "In miniature...an absolute proper companion...and saves the children". To the above points re. sources, I found the Telegraph article after having already cited the Digital Spy article. That's two sources and I've found some more since. And I repeat re. billing - see "The Long Game" (no companion credit for Adam Mitchell who was designated as a companion by key production staff) and "Time Crash" (two Doctor credits and no one to my knowledge has ever tried to claim the Fifth Doctor is the Tenth Doctor's companion for this story because that is how they appear to be billed), for examples of straying from the recently established (1996 onwards) trend in Doctor Who of including actors' names in the title sequence and my point re. there not being a labeling system, (e.g. Billie Piper as companion Rose Tyler). It is far from 'ridiculous' to identify characters as one-off companions given the precedent set by Sara Kingdom, Dr. Grace Holloway and most notably with regard to this episode Donna Noble in 2006 Christmas special "The Runaway Bride" and Astrid Peth in 2007 Christmas special "Voyage of the Damned". Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cripes! You need 11 citations to prove a point, and none of them actually states "Rosita is the Tenth Doctor's companion". I'm not reverting, but please cut down the numers of citations; this looks rediculous! If you need that much (vague) citations, it looses every bit of credibility. — Edokter • Talk • 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that looks terrible and from what I can see, most, if not all of those citations are irrelevant. we only need one good citation to say that she is a companion, and her status is still quite arguable as it is magnius (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not need 11 citations to prove a point. There are 11 citations that "prove" a point. I am merely making use of them in this article. Also, one has to read the articles in question in order to find relevent statements. I think its wishful thinking to expect the sources to use the sentence "Rosita is the Tenth Doctor's companion", as stated above, explicitly. I think Russell T Davies qualifies as the "one good citation" asked for. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 5

If it makes people feel any better, Stephen James Walker wrote in his book Monsters Within (while an unofficial guide, is still scholarly) that, and I quote, "the chances are that the specials will feature a succession of 'one off' companions akin to Astrid in 'Voyage of the Damned' - starting with Rosita, played by Velile Tshabalala, in the 2008 Christmas special "The Next Doctor", leaving Moffat to present his own new ongoing companion(s) in the 2010 episodes. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the other books he's written (or co-written), SJW is good enough for me. Given that, we can also reduce the number of cites to just one. DonQuixote (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that is clearly a reliable source in these matters. I do not understand why we have so much discussion about that status, WP:V is clear: Reliable source says she is, so we write that she is. If someone thinks the source is incorrect, they got to prove that. I hope we can end the discussion on that trivial matter finally with that source... SoWhy 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a technical question - does Stephen James Walker's speculation in a book published prior to the episode's transmission really trump writer Russell T Davies's comments in the podcast and on Doctor Who Confidential broadcast to accompany the episode, both of which were referenced in the citations replaced by this book? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Full moon

A full moon is clearly visible in the night sky of the early hours of 25 December 1851. This is incorrect. In 1851 the full moon occured on 8 December. ðarkuncoll 22:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your point being...?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Goofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 December 2008

Doesn't strike me as the least bit notable - how often to producers go to the trouble of ensuring that the phase of the moon is correct for the dates used? Rarely, I'd have thought. _TalkIslander 01:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really a 'goof', just a nitpick.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention a huge robot in London. Just remember that this isn't a historical drama. DonQuixote (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there was a huge robot in London around that time, but it actually terrorised the nation on the 3rd January, not Christmas Day ;). However, your point on it not being a historical drama is bang-on. _TalkIslander 11:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if there is a trivia section, this information could go in there ;) 86.161.254.105 (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) WP:TRIVIA DBD 12:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really not notable. WP policy is to delete trivia or incorporate it into the article. "The CyberKing rises up from the Thames and it should be noted that the Moon is not in the correct phase that it was on 25 December 1851". No, I can't see it. It just sounds naff. Don't worry about it. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Image caption

The caption for the image at the top of the page is a bit too lengthy and spoiler-ish, in my opinion. 76.95.221.240 (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't care about spoilers, and as it's a non-free image, it needs to have an explainatory caption. — Edokter • Talk • 04:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILERS. _TalkIslander 11:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, not again. There's no rush for an image. Write the article first, then find an image. That way, the infobox caption won't have such terrible but ultimately not NFCC-compliant writing. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest an image of a Cybershade (for which we have a discussion of the design), or the Cyberking, both being difficult to describe fully in words? Edgepedia (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cybershade or Cyberking would be better, as long as you can find the relevant production material. I'd be inclined to go towards the Cybershades because we can talk about the design, yes. If we can get discussion about steampunk-ness of the episode, (might get some from Confidential, though I think it'll mostly come from the reception), we could get a picture of the TARDIS rising up against the Cyberking. Where the project has three problems are: relying just on the plot for an image; relying just on the "cannot be adequately described with words"; and trying too hard to make it NFCC compliant, when sometimes it just can't be. Like I said on WT:WHO:

I was thinking about the images used in the episode articles. To be honest, they've got really crap rationales. I think we shouldn't rely just on the plot for a fair use image - we should use something where we can analyse the screenshot using as much information as we can. Take, for example, Turn Left. It's a really crap rationale and caption compared to The Stolen Earth. Uploaders are really going the wrong way with rationales... and it looks stunted. I've thought of an image that would be immensely better: Rocco Colsanto being shipped off to a concentration camp. (This shot) This is for four reasons:

1. It accurately represents the dystopia in the plot as a result of the Doctor's lack of presence. (Plot)
2. It accurately represents the "life during wartime" plot that Davies wrote. (Production)
3. It was well received by critics (Reception)
4. It can provide analysis in comparing the plot's depiction of dystopia with World War II (Production and Reception)

You see how easily I did that? I think Future Perfect at Sunrise has a point, to be honest: write the content, and the image should follow. Not the other way around. Doing it that way stunts the image, and ultimately, the article.

Writing rationales and captions should be like writing poetry: it just flows and feels right. When I write my rationales, I just don't throw in "to illustrate the plot", I give specific reasons—often specific just to that shot—to why I think the image should be used. When you try too hard, it brings up bad practices. The NFCC doesn't ask for an image "that cannot be adequately described with words", it asks for an image for which no free alternative medium could serve the same encyclopedic purpose, and that the reader's understanding of the article would be signficantly impacted if the image was removed. That's why the image on The Stolen Earth passes NFCC, whereas the image on The Unicorn and the Wasp may not. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again. To pick up on just one of your points: I really don't see how the image for The Stolen Earth passes NFCC at all - "A distraught Rose cradles a dying Doctor". There, that simple image is described easily. The picture for The Unicorn and the Wasp, however, is harder to describe in words (or, as you put it, a free alternative medium). Yes, it's a large wasp, but how exactly is that done? Is it just literally an over-sized wasp, or are certain features changed? How is it attacking the Doctor et al? Same goes with this picture - Miss Hartigan destroyed the Cybermen, but how? Ultimately, am I right and you wrong? Not at all, just as you're not right with me being wrong. This is the large flaw with NFCC - it's hugely open to interpretation, and in this case, our interpretations don't match at all. _TalkIslander 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, "the infobox caption won't have such terrible but ultimately not NFCC-compliant writing." - I do take slight offence at that - in what way is it terrible? How would you like it if I slandered your work to the same extent? _TalkIslander 13:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd take FPaS's support of the image as affirmation that the Stolen Earth image is NFCC-compliant. And while we may have loose interpretations about the NFCC, when the image goes up to GAC/FAC, we need to explain to people like FPaS, who are considerably stricter, why it definitively passes the NFCC, and not just our interpretation of it. The problem with an image like this, or the Unicorn image, is that we're trying to find some analysis of the plot in just that shot, and most of the time failing. An infobox screenshot is supposed to touch on all the major points of the episode: its plot, its production, and its reception. There is no brightline which says "special effects are always compliant, humans only are non-compliant" either. And with regards to the writing: maybe terrible was a bit rash, but I definitely wouldn't support it if it came to GAC or FAC. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

King Crimson homage / joke?

This web site [7] suggests the entire episode was a visual gag based on King Crimson's debut LP "In the Court of the Crimson King". A woman in a crimson dress as the leader of "The Court of the Cyber King"??? Coincidence seems unlikely88.97.41.24 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have also pointed out that the vocals on "ITCOTCK" were done by Greg Lake. Another coincidence? 88.97.41.24 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source we can consider including it. "Because some blogger thinks so" is none I am afraid. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that posting by Pete Baran on Freaky Trigger tells us is "never blog on egg nog and mulled wine". --TS 16:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, but you have to admit it does seem a good theory. 88.97.41.24 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Polite request

I have been beefing out the plot description. Although I was initially merry with Xmas sherries and unfamiliar with Wiki, I have now toned down my personal flares and moved to adopt a neutral tone. I note that what I replaced was highly anecdotal and unclear, presumably due to having been written immediately after one viewing of the episode. A quick perusal of Wiki entries for other Doctor Who episodes shows entries little different in length or detail from my input. If this has been decreed to be unsuitable, I'd appreciate to see an evolution of the article and it not simply reverting.

I understand this service to be for the enjoyment of all, and to share our knowledge and observations. Therefore, this is a polite request to whomever is continuing to remove my input: please give more of a reason than you disagree with one individual Wiki user's writing style.

Also, apologies if I haven't signing this entry properly.

(Alexandermacpherson (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

The problem with a summary is that if it is too long so as to resemble more a blow-by-blow recital of the plot, we then have a problem with breaching copyright, as it is then a derivative work rather than a summary. If I have time, and subject to input from other editors, I'll take a look at it. --Rodhullandemu 20:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute those reasons given. However, nor do I think my entry was radically longer - a longer sentence here, a longer sentence there, the vicissitudes of different writing styles. Furthermore, there were possibly repeated earlier sections which I hadn't fully excised. Lastly, I still feel the previous input referred to the same points of the plot as I did; and other Wiki entries seem to give similar level of detail. I'll try one final, complete entry later! (Alexandermacpherson (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Might I suggest that you post your next version on this talk page, right here? That way, it's easier for others to comment on it, and it saves it being reverted near-on instantly by someone unaware of your post here. If consensus shows that it's good, it can be added to the article. On a side note, welcome to Wikipedia :). _TalkIslander 21:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuity, past companions

Ok, my PC hiccuped and posted the last revert before I finished the edit summary.

In Continuity we had

The Doctor also refers obliquely to more recent past companions noting to Lake that they either leave him (such as Rose), meet someone else or forget about him (such as Donna).

There seems to be a slow edit war on this sentence. My point on the version above is that it's WP:OR, we have no idea who the doctor was refering to. He's meant to be 950 years old and we only know about the last 50 years.

I think the sentence ought to stay as it is; we do not know who the doctor was referring to. Edgepedia (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, he has had many many companions in the last 50 years, so speculating to whom he is referring falls under original research (I think that is the correct term) imo magnius (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Per billing

Someone added Rosita as a companion. I removed it. Next time, read that it SAYS it is listed by billing instead of citing some random interview. Especially given she's the companion of a companion. --69.11.210.54 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to the companion madness at the project page. Have a look. U-Mos (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Series 4/Transition specials/Both straw poll

I've been thinking about this episode a bit recently, and how we should categorise it. It was produced in the series four cycle, as opposed to the 2009 cycle, but it's also got the tone of the transition specials (Tennant's last TV specials). What are peoples' thoughts towards this special? Should it be counted as part of series 4, part of the transition specials, or both? Sceptre ^(talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say we go with the sources. If it's part of season 4's production cycle and all, then it should be counted as season 4 while the specials are their own entity. Regards SoWhy 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not series 4 - that ended in July, and the DVD is already out without this. Production filming does not indicate it's season - In the early era of Doctor WHo they used to record stories at the end of a schedule to hold over for the net season. 86.149.200.10 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with this episode though; DWM 402's pullout Doctor Who Backstage has RTD saying that "The Next Doctor" is like the four remaining specials: the Doctor has no fixed companion but has one one-off companion for each episode. Also, most things that are billed as the "fourth series" don't include TND (e.g. DVD boxset, SJW) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For me at least, the DVDs are definitive — S1 is "Rose" through "The Parting of the Ways", 2 "The Christmas Invasion" (or the Children in Need prologue) through "Doomsday", 3 "The Runaway Bride" through "Last of the Time Lords" and 4 "Voyage of the Damned" through "Journey's End". We'll see whether the five specials are released in a box set, but even if they aren't, it's a convenient way of grouping them. Unfortunately, production codes and cycles don't necessarily mean lots — the specials are 4.? because it saves from the mess of naming them X.? or whatever. Anyway, there's a very definite "divide" between "Journey's End" and "The Next Doctor". Just my tuppence! DBD 23:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with DBD, but we can alway keep a look out to see what bbc.co.uk/doctor who list them as. There is no rush after all. :) --Cameron* 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it need to be categorised in/grouped with either Series 4 or the 2009 Specials? Can it not be simply Series 4, 2008 Christmas Special, 2009 Specials, Series 5...? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as TCI is categorised as series 2, TRB series 3, and VOTD series 4, non-categorisation would make this a freak case. More than it is now, I mean. I keep thinking about this and I'm constantly edging towards the 2009 specials... Sceptre ^(talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should cause concern. It's an episode after Series 4 and before the 2009 specials - simple as. It does not need shoe-horning into a category merely for categorisation's sake. It's a mere anomaly to the usual pattern, at least until it is grouped somehow by an official BBC party. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is anyone opposed to removing it from the series 4 category? If not, I'll remove it in a couple of days time. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've (re?)acted on this consensus as per this discussion and my own thoughts on the matter. IMO it's madness to list this episode as part of series 4. U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

US (2)

Is there any source saying when this'll air in the US? --69.91.95.139 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You best bet is keeping track of the following pages:

http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/123/index.jsp

http://www.scifi.com/doctorwho/

— Edokter • Talk • 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding, Edokter! I was worried this section would be ignored like the one above.

I'll definitely be keeping an eye on those websites. --69.91.95.139 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Credits

In Radio Times, Tennant & Morrissey were identically credited in the cast list as The Doctor. Can anyone confirm whether this was followed in the on-screen credits? Cast lists on various websites are inconsistent, & I haven't managed to find a prose statement on this point. Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This was not followed- Morrissey was credied as Jakeson Lake. Here is a screencap of the credits as proof. --OZOO 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Peter jackson (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackson Lake page - Why isn't there one?

Hello.

I was wondering if someone can explain why a page for Jackson Lake hasn't been created here at Wikipedia? Sure, he may only have been a one-off companion but so was Grace Holloway and Astrid Peth and more recently, Christina de Souza and they've had pages created for them. Why is Jackson being the exception?

Thanks for reading and I look forward to any and all responses. --Alan-WK (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a more pertinent question would be: why have pages been created for such minor characters? Mezigue (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to, but got bogged down with schoolwork. At the moment, though, The Next Doctor is low on my list of personal priorities; currently, my priorities are to get the other series four articles to GA/FA, then this article, then Children of Earth, then the Leonard Cohen song Hallelujah, then RTD's article... If someone wants to create it in the vein of Astrid Peth or Jenny (Doctor Who), though, I won't object. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Truncated" credits?

The section under DVD release talks of an altered "cinematic" end credits sequence, as opposed to the truncated form from the broadcast. I for one have no idea what this means. What was truncated about the original credits? What has been changed on the DVD? More info is needed there. (On a lesser note, shouldn't the picture also show the final cover version with the balloon?) U-Mos (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've remove "truncated", as it implies the credits are somehow incomplete, which they aren't. — Edokter (talk) — 16:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the official credits Official Doctor Who Website Sfxprefects (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Next Doctor DVD cover.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)