Talk:Time War (Doctor Who)

Public reaction to killing off Galifrey?

And all the timelords? Wasn't this stupid and hurt future Dr who stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering how many times the Daleks have been killed off, and that Gallifrey was dead to begin with, I doubt it had much impact. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering that many novels and audio stories and such since the relaunch have been scrambling to make sense of this Time War business and salvage previous works or ideas to fit with it, I'd say it had long reaching effects. I remember being pretty disgusted with the relaunch series after the first two episodes and didn't pick it back up for a few years. I also am fairly certain that many Doctor Who fans consider the entire new series to be a spin-off in its own right and just as subject to non-canonity as the books and comics are. Davies himself seems to gloss over the whole issue when it's brought up, meaning he probably didn't think too far ahead and just wanted an excuse to regenerate the Doctor and start the series off with a bang. I can't say it truly hurt the future stories cause they're still coming out (albeit the show's new format pushes through them way too fast), but I think it definitely stirred things up. Oh, and Gallifrey wasn't dead to begin with, so I don't know where the hell you're getting that from.--Dakmordian (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Act of Master Restitution

If the parenthesis I added about the "Act of Master Restitution" is too speculative, please feel free to remove it. I just thought that it was likely that the "Master Restitution" was literally that: the restitution of the Master to the Daleks, whom he had once betrayed. Of course, it could also be any of a number of other interpretations, which is why I said "may". Nevertheless, I defer to the community's judgment as to whether this is a likely and noteworthy interpretation, or just fanwankiness. :) —Josiah Rowe 03:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fanwankiness aside, if indeed the Act of Master Restitution is the handing over of the Master to the Daleks, it's triggering my paradox senses. Currently, it seems from the entry (I don't have the Annual, so you'll have to tell me) that Romana tried the Restitution first, then Etra Prime bollixed it up. Is that correct?

If so, the sequence of events needs to go like this:

1. Romana gives the Master to the Daleks to make peace.
2. Daleks kidnap Romana, invade Gallifrey in The Apocalypse Element and are defeated by the Sixth Doctor. Human retinal patterns are used as a security measure on the Eye of Harmony.
3. mumblemumbleEye of Harmony in TARDIS installed with same security measure.
4. The Master is executed and is picked up by the Seventh Doctor (said assignment given to him by Romana in Lungbarrow).

But since by his seventh incarnation the Doctor should know that the handing over of the Master to the Daleks didn't work, why should he go to fetch the Master's remains anyway? If there's a full blown war going on at this time, why would the Daleks even allow this request? Sure, you can postulate that the Daleks and the Master were in cahoots to screw over the Doctor, but the Doctor wouldn't be that dumb if a state of war existed between the Daleks and the Time Lords, would he? (Then again, he didn't check the scanner before walking out into a hail of gunfire, either)

It would make lots more sense if the Etra Prime incident happened before the Act of Master Restitution. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Davies is careful to be very non-specific about the order of events in the Annual. The relevant sentences are:

While it's hard to find precise records of these events, it's said that under the Act of Master Restitution, President Romana opened a peace treaty with the Daleks. Others claim that the Etra Prime Incident began the escalation of events.

This leaves the order (and, indeed, the meaning) of these two events open to interpretation. I'll try to reword the entry to be equally ambiguous. —Josiah Rowe 05:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Restitution" implies return - i.e., the "restituation" in question is allowing the Doctor to collect the ashes in the TVM rather than any initial handover of the Master. - SoM 14:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Restitution means compensation. The difficulty I have with your reading is that the act of restitution is initiated by Romana as a means to make peace with the Daleks. Why would allowing the Doctor to retrieve the ashes be a peace overture? Besides, it was the Master who requested that the Doctor do this. The Master was allied with the Daleks in Frontier in Space and screwed up badly enough that it's conceivable that the Daleks wanted to exterminate him — the usual Dalek penalty for failure. It makes much more sense if it was Romana handing the Master over to the Daleks for trial. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Timewar-Timewars?

Is it possible that the Timewar mentioned in the 2005 series is just one of a series of wars fought throughout time? I personally think it is after all the Ninth Doctor refers to the war as "the Last Great Timewar" (Dalek) The only difference between this and other timewars may be that it was the last one and the most destructive.

It is already explained adequately in the Doctor Who Annual 2006 section, where it is explained there were two previous Time Wars. The "Other time wars in Doctor Who" section also talks about time wars in the spin-off fiction. So... already covered. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, isn't "last time war" slightly oxymoronic? :) - SoM 17:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe its just that everbody thinks that there isn't going to be another one (virtually all of the previous time travelling races have been killed), but of course there could be another..... --βjweþþ (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What about the war between the timelords and great vampires, in State of Decay. I think that's properly characterized as a Timewar, and don't really buy RTD's exclusive chronology as such.Jahenderson

There is no suggestion anywhere in the series or the licensed fiction that the war against the Great Vampires was one that utilised time as a weapon or was fought between two factions divided by time. All accounts point to it being a vicious war happening within the same time zone. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

What can one argue or deduce from the term Timewar? Does it mean that the events took "a long period of time" or that there were "non-sequential movements through time" (ie in the sense that the Tardis can move between different times without being present in the intervening intervals)?

Jackiespeel 18:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

From what Captain Jack & the Doctor were saying in Parting of the Ways, it sounds more like the TLs and the Daleks were taken out of time completely, and the effects of them fighting wherever-they-did caused major disruption - both conventional and timewarp (i.e. retcons) - SoM 19:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, consider RTD's article in the Doctor Who Annual 2006, which identifies the Doctor's mission to prevent the creation of the Daleks (Genesis of the Daleks) as the "first shot" in the Great Time War. That suggests that time-travel was used as a weapon in the Time War. The same article suggests that most of the War took place in the Vortex itself ("and beyond that, in the Ultimate Void, beyond the eyes and ears of ordinary creatures," whatever that means), and that was why its effects were so widespread throughout time and space.

I think it's likely that Davies is indicating (with broad, audience-friendly strokes) the same sort of War throughout history that Lawrence Miles and his cohorts thought up for the EDAs and Faction Paradox lines: that is, a war in which history itself is both a battlefield and a weapon, a war in which cause and effect, beginning and end become confused. It's certainly more than, say, a longer version of the Hundred Years' War. —Josiah Rowe 22:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, what Josiah said :). It doesn't exactly mean changing history or anything- or it doesn't have to, what with the whole Zagreus-Sometime Never Alt Universe idea. The Time Lords, I imagine, would be much more careful with time travel than the Daleks, so history could be intact- indeed, what could be a better blow to to all these time travelling races than "fixing" history! On the other hand, I have this sinking feeling that they'll use "Uh, Time War!" as a blanket "continuity sweep", which is the same reason I don't buy the "Erased Gallifrey" thing. Sean 23:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

EDA/Faction Paradox War

Do we really want to get into the whole "Who is the Enemy" question here? According to Lawrence Miles, neither the Celestis (future Celestial Intelligence Agency) nor Faction Paradox are the Enemy. The Ancestor Cell presented a completely different alternative (the first lifeform in the universe? that wanted to make all other life in the universe over in its image? or something like that? it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me). As for the Daleks, when was it hinted that they were the Enemy?

I think that we might be better off avoiding the entire subject. —Josiah Rowe 21:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's largely speculation, and it's more appropriate for the EDA article anyways. Besides, Mad Larry has a tendecy to subvert people's expectations. I can recall people saying that he Enemy was the Daleks after Dalek aired, but again, speculation.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. Out it goes. —Josiah Rowe 22:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, the Enemy was supposed to be the Daleks. That single eye gazing down in (was it Adventuresss of Henrietta Street? Somewhere around there) was a giveaway, as well as the mention of the Klade (oh, those wacky anagrams!). Permission was not obtained, however, and the books went off on that tangent anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I knew about the Klade, but I always interpreted the eye-in-the-sky in Henrietta Street (which was after The Ancestor Cell, remember) as being the blasted remains of the Eye of Harmony. If it was meant to be representative of the Enemy, I suppose the Daleks are more likely monocular foes than, say, the Monoids... —Josiah Rowe 00:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't underestimate the Monoids! A foe so scary Australia's ABC removed every single close-up of them from The Ark. Allegedly. Angmering 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe that's where they're going with Season 28 (or Series 2, if you prefer). Er, Monoids, Torchwood.. Yeah, I got nothing :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that the final story of next season will feature an epic war between the Monoids and the Nimon. ("Army of Ghosts" is a dummy title, to throw off suspicion.) —Josiah Rowe 01:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What is it, "The War of the Silly Costumes"? :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Colin Baker makes a cameo. —Josiah Rowe 01:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*/Rimshot!*/ :)--Sean Jelly Baby? 05:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be here all month. And don't forget to tip your waitress! :) —Josiah Rowe 05:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Rereading it on the history page, it's almost pure speculation. Sorry. Daibhid C 18:33 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Anyway, it produced the above bit of silliness, so more good than bad in my book. :) —Josiah Rowe 18:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Enemy revisited

In the AHistory essay about Gallifrey being destroyed (once or twice) he mentions that the Daleks can be the trigger for a single destuction of Gallifrey without being the books' Enemy. I was considering adding this bit of the theory to the EDA section, but in order to do that we'd have to explain who the Enemy is further. I'm slightly abashed, since I was the one who excised the Enemy discussion before. But now we've got published speculation by Lance Parkin, so it's not original research, is it? So, should this bit go in the article or not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't, really, since Parkin's essay is purely speculative, even though it's published. Those interested can go pick up the book (it's a good book!) and it's not really necessary to understand what went on in the books or the television series, which do not suggest the Parkin scenario at all. Basically, if we're going to put this in, we're going to be pretty much invalidating all this at the end by saying, "Well, they weren't the Daleks, anyway, and the production team says it's two wars, not one, and it's only a neat little bit of fanwankery on Lance's part which isn't even explicit or implicit in The Gallifrey Chronicles..." and it all winds up looking a little silly and useless, if you see what I mean.

On a related note, I reverted the edit (sort of) because Parkin's exact words in AHistory are: "If there was only one destruction of Gallifrey, he and his future self would have to be present, and both culpable." It's a bit of semantical juggling, but the reason I prefer "both selves" over "both times" is because it makes it clearer that there is only one destruction, witnessed/caused by two of the same guy, rather than two occasions, which although technically correct, muddies things up somewhat. Or perhaps I'm just easily confused. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one. The reason I had made the previous edit was that in our summary "both culpable" seemed unclear to me, since the previous clause hadn't (grammatically) referred to the two versions of the Eighth Doctor as two persons. (Douglas Adams was right — the most difficult thing about time travel is the grammar.)

The current wording is fine, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The last Time Lord

There is a mention of Dr Who being the last Gallifrayan in the latest episode of S2.

How does Dr Who count as the last of his kind as he moves back and forth through time - at certain points he will be co-existing temporally (and temporarily) with other Time Lords? Or is there some sort of paradox-prevention occurring? Jackiespeel 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In the old series, it was said to be forbidden by the Laws of Time for the Doctor to meet his past selves, but that never really stopped him doing so when it was necessary. As we saw in Father's Day, a human whose past selves touch each other can cause a paradox (the same happened in Mawdryn Undead). There is a huge discussion in fandom about why the Doctor just can't go back; people have noticed that whenever the Doctor goes back to Gallifrey, he never goes back to a past version, but one later than the last he visited. This may be some kind of limitation as well. In the books, it is forbidden to go into Gallifrey's past (though typically, the Doctor's done that as well). In The Gallifrey Chronicles, after Gallifrey was destroyed in The Ancestor Cell, it was explained that that destruction created an event horizon in relative time, a barrier that prevented anyone from going to Gallifrey prior to its destruction and anyone there travelling to a point beyond it, which explained why the Eighth Doctor no longer encountered Time Lords. Headache inducing, yeah, but there you go. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to "date" the Time War in which the Dr becomes the last Timelord - to somewhere before "real present" - going by S1 episode Dalek and S2 episode School Reunion. Jackiespeel 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is, at least, a fact that the winner of The Weakest Link in Bad Wolf dated the Time-War as being "thousands of years ago". That's all I'm adding.--Stripey1 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all Rodrick said was (in reference to the Daleks) "they disappeared thousands of years ago." Given the nature of a time war, that really means very little. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the other renegade Gallifreyans the Doctor has encountered over the years [Rani, Meddling Monk, etc], are we sure none of them survived ??

If some Daleks, who are not Lords of Time, can manage to escape the Time War, why couldn't some of the other Time Lords ??

193.243.227.1 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter type of Time War and the Temporal Cold War

I doubt it would be worth mentioning on the article itself, but the latter description bears resembalance unto the Temporal Cold War as was seen throughout the length of Star Trek: Enterprise. Even though it's a story-arc they never properly done right, in my opinion and seeing as UPN forced it on them..

Though, the otherwise article has listed the Time War under Comparisons, so I s'pose a See Also might be fitting in some way.. What do you think?DrWho42 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)#

Series 2 Finale

Should some referance to be made to the speculation aboiut the up and coming series ending double episode Army of Ghosts/Doomsday?

It is rumoured that this episode contains a war between the Cybermen and the Daleks, two species who have used time travel. This war could be some form of Time War.

"Speculation", "rumoured", "could", "some form"; all these words should tell you that this is a bad idea. There's no basis whatsoever for assuming that there is any non-superficial connection, at least at this time. Let's wait and see, please.--SB | T 09:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Whatever you say. 213.162.107.4 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Arcadia

Was the Doctor really speaking literally when he said he was at the "fall of Arcadia"? I think this is probably a figurative reference to the destruction of Gallifrey, rather than a planet called Arcadia. The Wikipedia entry for Arcadia (utopia) describes it as a "poetical name for fantasy land (having more or less the same connotation as Utopia)". This fits with the theme of Time Lords-as-lesser-gods that has been particularly evident during the Tenth Doctor's tenure.

Interesting interpreation, but I'd adhere to Occam's Razor for this one, particularly since RTD is fond of inserting these little continuity Easter Eggs into scripts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Gallifrey audio series

Is there a way to acknowledge the apparent attempt to dovetail the Gallifrey audio series with the events of the Time War without delving into original research? In Gallifrey:Panacea Braxiatel speaks of "rumours out there in the big wide universe — more than rumours, in fact — that something's coming to Gallifrey, something worse than you could possibly imagine", which is almost certainly intended as a reference to the Time War; he also says that if the Imperiatrix had ruled Gallifrey, the dismal future he's heard tell of could have been prevented, alluding to "what you saw in the Matrix projections — remember, Romana?" This is probably a reference to the Matrix projection of Imperiatrix Romana obliterating the Dalek Emperor from history in Neverland, reprised (with the Nekkistani taking the Daleks' place) in Gallifrey: Imperiatrix. Along with the extremely weakened state of Gallifrey at the end of the series (facing economic and social collapse as well as the Free Time virus rampant among the population), it all looks very much like an attempt to set up the Time War. But how do we say that while avoiding OR? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While it MAY be considered Original Research on my part, I'd have to say that from what I've seen of the various audio-stories done in the last 5-6 years since the show's revival it would appear that many writers are trying to find ways of making this whole silly Time War nonsense fit in the established Doctor Who continuity. The Gallifrey series certainly could be seen as an attempt to do this, and we can't forget the oft-debated Enemy subject, either. I've heard rumours that a fourth season of Gallifrey was in the works, though that may have been outdated and it fell through, I can't remember. If the series does continue, perhaps it will shed more light on this.--Dakmordian (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Theory

Theory in the time war final battle the doctor use the hand of omega from (Remembrance of the Daleks)to destroy Gallifrey sun and the dalek Armada. He said in dalek (2005) the dalek ships were on fire this is one Theory how timelords were destroyed.

(Going to leave the above as-is....think it's my theory, but poorly worded)

The Doctor destroys Skaro in Remembrance of the Daleks. The Hand of Omega "returns" to Gallifrey after destroying Skaro and the Dalek fleet. Could it be this one act that destroys both? Despite the Doctor not realizing it throughout the remainder of the original series, and kind of ignoring the TV Movie entirely, could this not be the "last" action in the Time War as referenced in the New Series?

No. Not it could not. I think the Doctor would have done something else if the result destroyed Gallifrey.

the beast he said rose would die in battle tecnicily go to a diffrent realty from satan childern are abdon and great vampiers beacuase they slept of eturnety and are devil like —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stargate2007 (talk • contribs) 14:36, February 9, 2007 (UTC)

Can you say that again in English? 86.156.40.1 10:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he menat that the beast said that Rose would die in battle [which he did], and that technically they were going to a different reality from Satan's children and teh Great Vampires [whoever TF they might be] because of the sleep of eternity and because they are devil-like. I don't think that makes any more sensein terms of explaining anything about the destruction of Gallifrey, but mpossibly he means that he thinks the doctor has moved into an alternalte reality.

Image ?

Where'd it come from?--172.134.61.220 22:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Martha's Myspace

In the most recent blog on Martha Jones' myspace, she talks about a Time War memorial. Anyone think it's worth adding?Andral 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The memorial is mentioned in this article already, under 2006 annual: The article ends with a description of a monument to the Time War on a distant planet, upon which, under an image of a lone survivor walking away, the message "You are not alone" has been scratched, perhaps indicating that the Doctor was not the sole survivor of the conflict. Gwinva 06:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He took me to this place called the Eye of Orion. It was beautiful. So calm and still and alien but not in a bad way. . He told me that, back in the old days, the Eye of Orion used to be sort of like a holiday resort. But now it's this shrine to the Time War. It was all ruins and grass and mist and just so quiet. We went to a meadow and standing in it was this stone that was about the same height as me. He said it was a war memorial. I asked him why there weren't any names on it and he said it was because too many people had died.

Not only does this contain new information (such as that the memorial is at the Eye of Orion), but it may well be a different memorial altogether, as the descriptions aren't entirely the same. Even if it is the same one, it might be worth mentioning that this other form of uncanonized media confirms the existance of the memorial, puts it in the current continuity as a place visited by the Doctor and Martha, and names where it is. Andral 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Genesis

I remember this article had a cited reference to RTD describing Genesis of the Daleks as being the first strike in the Time War? Why was this removed?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed incorrect statement

I've excised this from the EDA section:

(At one stage it was also rumoured that the novels' Enemy would be revealed to be the Daleks, however issues with the estate of Dalek creator Terry Nation, which co-owns the rights with the BBC, prevented them from being used.)

AIUI, the Enemy were never the Daleks (for one thing, the Enemy supposedly comes from Earth) though I'm sure I've read Parkin say somewhere that he unsuccessfully pitched the idea of a book where the Daleks work themselves up into incorrectly believing that they were. The Daleks were supposed to be Sabbath's employers in the post-TAC EDAs, and were prevented from appearing there because of the rights issues, but that's nothing to do with any Time War per se so doesn't belong in this article. --86.128.137.136 18:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of Time and Space

One thing I found interesting while watching Bad Wolf for the first time: the Daleks, according to Jack, "vanished out of time and space", to which the Doctor replies that they went off to fight the Time War. Jack thought it was just a legend. That, to me, reads like a pretty important element of how the Time War was actually fought. I know some fans are uneasy, for example, with the idea the Time Lords have actually disappeared from history, but Jack effectively says the Daleks have done so here. Should this be mentioned, and if so, in what sort of context? --77.99.30.226 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The infobox

Real-world infoboxes are not for fictional subjects. This is because such infoboxes are designed to describe their universe (the real one!) without reference to any other. Because of this, this infobox has no reference to the real world whatsoever. WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes sugggests a number of ways infoboxes might be useful for fictional subjects. "For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction." This infobox does none of these things.

This is a canonical example of why infoboxes for real-world subjects are not useful for fictional ones. If I were to add an example diff of the kind of infobox WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes advises editors not to use in fictional subjects, that diff would be removing this infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

However, the entry to which you link states "For this reason, infoboxes meant for real-world entities should not be applied to their fictional counterparts, since, for example, information important to a description of a real-world company may be tangential to a fictional one. It is important to identify the revenue of Microsoft, whereas the fact that fictional MegaAcmeCorp makes 300 billion GalactiBucks in the year 2463 is probably unimportant."

This info is clearly important to a reader. Someone coming to this page would expect to see the information contained in the infobox, because it helps understanding of the subject in an in-universe context, which is almost certainly what the reader came here for in the first place. The most useful way to do so is to place it in the infobox. Furthermore, the infobox does not cause the sort of continuity problems mentioned in WP:WAF, as it links to other existing pages.

Flamsmark 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of emphasis. What's important to a reader is the work that this appears in, who created that work, and other real-world facts. The fact that the Time Lords were commanded by the President of Gallifrey is not a major fact, nor is the death of off-camera prisoners of the Daleks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Real-world infoboxes are not for fictional subjects" -- I don't see any statement on the infobox that it's for RL events only. Matthew 08:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This infobox makes no reference to the real world whatsoever. WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes sugggests a number of ways infoboxes might be useful for fictional subjects. "For entities within fiction, useful infobox data might include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction." This infobox does none of these things.

Because of this, I'd remove it even if it were named {{Fictional infobox for fictional military conflicts which are fictional}}. It doesn't do what an infobox for a fictional subject should. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF states "data might include" and "What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work.". My interpretation of this is that it's not an exhaustive list and one should just add it anyway if the infobox increases the readers understanding of the subject -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 02:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm absolutely thrilled my new Wider Attention system is being put to use. Here's my opinion of it - we have to make it so that it doesn't look like it's actually a company that exists in the flesh world. Do stuff like what was mentioned above -- treat it like it's a figment of a show. Keep intricate in-universe details out of the picture (though major stuff could be included). MessedRocker (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a company, but a battle, but I agree with the rest of what you're saying. There's a Buffyverse company infobox that ditches most of the trivia and adds real-world context, and that's fine.

The problem here is that I'm not sure that a Dr. Who battle infobox is necessary, and a general fictional war infobox would have to have a LOT of fields, most of which wouldn't be applicable to most cases. It would be a nightmare figuring out how to implement just the basic work-in-which-it-appears and creator templates to be applicable to all or most cases. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because it'd be difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. I'm sure we could find some common ground if we actually tried to create one. --Hemlock Martinis 00:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A template that is too difficult to use might as well not exist. I'm fiddling with something, but for the meantime this infobox isn't useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant difficult to create, not difficult to use. Nevertheless, a fictional military conflict template would be a good compromise between those seeking to keep the real-world military infobox in and those seeking to take it out, and it's a solution that'd be within the "rules". --Hemlock Martinis 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, rules, schmules. I don't dislike this infobox because of the rules; I dislike it because it's in-universe and chock full of trivia. Most guidelines aren't prescriptive rules, merely arguments that have seen consensus support.

As for designing the infobox, it's a challenge to make an infobox that doesn't suck to use but can handle everything it needs to do, while still actually being useful. I'm having a lot of trouble not making a uselessly vague "fictional thing" infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's feasible, I suppose, that one could create an infobox for fictional events--listing the works in which they feature or (in this case) have significant mentions. I've removed the infobox for now, as an inappropriate in-universe artefact. --Tony Sidaway 11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Destruction of Gallifrey"

I'm convinced that this is actually a shot of the destruction of Skaro. There is nothing in the animation it's taken to say it's Gallifrey, and the image appears to be a modified shot of Skaro from the opening of the TV movie. Can anyone provide a citation which says this supposed to be the Daleks destroying Gallifrey and not the Time Lords destroying Skaro? If not, I'm going to change the caption on the image Marwood 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The chase

is it worth mentioning that the dalek has been depicted to have timetravel technology from some of there earlyest appearances

from there third appearance onwards they have been depicted to have timetravel technology. the main article mentions that as early as genesis of the daleks pre emptive strikes have been made between the timelords and daleks. i was wondering if it was worth mentioning that the daleks have had long use of time travel technology and are prepated to manipulate it for their own ends.

perhaps we can also talk about known dalek tactics and use of time corridor technology. does anyone know why when the daleks showed capable of building timeships that they more oftern use corridor technology?

it also would make sence considering the semming continuity errors between the dalek invasion of earth and the original daleks series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr noire (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Romana

I'm not sure when this passage was added (I searched back through May and then gave up), but it seems rather dubious to me:

Davies, lead writer and Executive Producer for Doctor Who, has stated that he considers the Doctor's former companion Romana's adventures canon during the period in which the series was cancelled (including leaving E-Space and becoming President of the Time Lords during the period of the Time War with the Daleks), meaning that Romana most likely perished in the final battle.

I added a {{cn}}, but I'm inclined to remove it altogether. I sincerely doubt that Davies said any such thing about considering something "canon", because he's made it perfectly clear that he doesn't deal in that concept. What I suspect this represents is someone reading (or hearing about) Davies' Time War story in the Doctor Who Annual 2006 and the fact that it references President Romana, and jumping from that to a proclamation about "canon". (Remember folks, there is no such thing as a Doctor Who canon.) I'll leave the paragraph up for now, but unless someone defends it soon I'll remove it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right — it's gone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wording of Moffat quote

I'd added Steven Moffat's line about how Doctor Who can't have a continuity error before it made BBC News, so my wording for the quotation was based on my own transcription of Moffat's comment, as heard on YouTube. It sounds to me as if at the end of the comment he's saying "he changed time — it's a time ripple from the Time War". But the BBC journalist heard it as "he changed time, it's a time warp." So I've got two questions: 1) what do you think the actual quotation is? and 2) should we go with the BBC News version even if it's incorrect, because they're a reliable source and me going with what I hear on the YouTube clip is original research? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This raises what I have always considered a powerful question: If I acquire facts by reading something in a reliable text media and quote it then that is OK, but if I acquire facts by hearing something in a reliable audio-video media then that is not OK. By what authority is text deemed more verifiable than an audio-video recording? Both forms of media can be returned to and re-verified by any Wikipedia editor so what justifies the discrimination of one media form over another? And please do not say that an audio recording is subject to being transcribed in error because that logic would lead to disallowing many scholarly translations of ancient texts. If there is an question of transcription then it is the job of the WP community to reach consensus on the allowable content of the source just as they do with text. Low Sea (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what Josiah is getting at isn't really about audio/video vs text. I see two issue:

1. BBC News is normally considered more reliable than You Tube.
2. The video is a primary source, whereas the news report is a secondary source, and Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources.

I think both of these points are based on mis-conceptions.

1. If a reporter on BBC news says something is true it is much more reliable than someone no one has ever heard of saying something is true on You Tube. However, that isn't what this is about. This is about the opinions of Steven Moffat.
2. I would say the bits of the news report where Moffat is being quoted directly are actually primary sources. This is an example of a complex source categorisation.

This being the case, I would go with the video. A video of someone speaking is inherently more reliable for a direct quotation. That said, the BBC report isn't totally useless. It does show that the opinions expressed are notable. Not as good as a report from outside the BBC, since the BBC makes doctor who, but better than nothing. Yaris678 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is a disparity between a written source's quotation (even if it is the BBC) and a video of the original quotation being spoken, the video clearly "wins" IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear it as : "It's impossible for Dr Who to get it wrong. Cos we can just say 'he changed time - time ripple - time ripple from the Time War. It happens'." Journalists aren't infallible. Orlando098 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary vs 2ndary Sources

I have long thought that this preference ( or insistence) on "reliable" 2ndary Sources (by the WickedPedia) is completely inapplicable articles on current TV programs. Persons see the programs and report what they see. Citing some magazine that discusses the program doesn't improve the article over what people saw. The programs are immediately available on DVD or YouTube. IMHO, the WickedPedia should abandon this rule relative to articles on current TV shows. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC))

Overhaul

I overhauled the entire article (save the spin-off sections) as to give a unified presentation of the subject. This is what a reader would be looking for, not a chronological collection of statements about the Time War in the sequence they were first revealed. This is in keeping with similar articles, e.g. The Doctor (Doctor Who) does not beging with the information provided by the First Doctor in the first episode, adding more and more in a chronological sequence either (and one can clearly see that in that first episodes, the Doctor - though already a time travelling alien - was not a Time Lord from Gallifrey with the ability to regenerate, with the Tardis one of many, which he had stolen etc.)

Of course, I have retained the various episodes in which details were revealed in footnotes. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But can you really say what Doctor Who was NOT? Unless there is a reliable 2ndary source saying he was NOT something, how are you going to "prove" what he was not? Did not his very name (WHO?) imply that there was much unknown about him? So, they started with the germ of a character and slowly developed it to utter absurdity (not that it is unentertaining absurdity). (EnochBethany (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC))

History immutable?

The article currently states

Whereas earlier episodes implied that history was either immutable ... or capable of being 
changed only by very powerful beings< ref >Pyramids of Mars (1975); Remembrance of the Daleks 
(1988)< / ref >

I don't know about the second (though stories like "Genesis of the Daleks" would also be relevant for the issue), but the first is unsupported. It used to be referenced by the The Aztecs, a 1964 serial. However, the episode does not actually state this but rather the opposite. In the story line, Barbara tries to change history by making the Aztecs quit human sacrifice in an effort to ultimately ensure their survival. The First Doctor vehemently tries to persuade her otherwise, not because history is immutable but because he considers it wrong to do so, given the unforeseeable consequences. That Barbara fails in her attempts is quite different from statements that no change could be achieved. Also, that her actions actually change a single man (the Aztec high priest) though not the entire people, seems quite in keeping with the "some things are fixed, others can be changed" reasoning provided by the Tenth Doctor.

However, the whole discussion makes me wonder whether this "changing history is so much easier after the Time War" is actually accurate? (Glossing over the fact that the differences are most probably just writers not being able to make up their minds and stick with it.)

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that if someone reassembles the Key to Time, anything is possible. All the person has to do is command the Key to Time. So, best to just take this all as a big comedy. The whole series seems to have become a grand exercise in an ultimate Byzantine absurdity. (EnochBethany (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC))

Infobox redux

I just realised that there was a discussion way back in 2007 (mediaeval time on the Wikipedia scale!) to suppress the infobox as inappropriate for a fictional event, and that someone put it back a little later. I would suggest removing it once again as it's pure in-universe stuff. Mezigue (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ages ago - unless you have a TARDIS :-) I agree with your suggestion that it should be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 12:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Virtually all of the refs are WP:SECONDARY. MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)