Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 19

Why quotes marks for singular episodes?
Just a query, why are single episodes refered to as "The Unquiet Dead" instead of the italics used for full stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.240.193 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rough guess? The serials are treated as "films" or "novels" which would have an italicized title. The singular episodes are treated as "short stories" or "chapters", hence the quotes. - J Greb (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb is: if it can be shelved individually -- it gets italics. MartinSFSA (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the original series episodes were always done with italics, whereas the revised series follows the television style guide for episodes and uses quotation marks. There have been discussions about bringing the older episodes into agreement with these guidelines, but never enough solid support to actually do it. --Ckatz chat spy  18:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the Manual of Style (titles), Multi-episode television serials are in italics, and as most of the classic series were muli-episode stories/serials, those are in italics. Also, feature length films get italics, and I think that was extended to TV movies or specials like The Five Doctors and the 1996 TV movie.  One could perhaps make a case for the longer specials of the new series to be in italics as well, but I don't think anyone's pressed that.  Single episodes of a television series are in quotes, so "Mission to the Unkown" and "The Unquiet Dead" are in quotes. Etron81 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be some push and shove on most of the specials based on "Are they part of the series or are they stand alones?" The only one where it may be clear cut to use italics is End of Time since it ran in 2 parts. - J Greb (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually guys, i think, although i don't know for certian, it is because the old 1960s-1980s stories contained one than more episode, and that's why it's itallic font. Itallic font is used for something which contains/or is 'more than one'. Whilst 2005-present, they are normal with speechmarks because they are single episodes. It is a speechmark if it 'just one'. Take for example three of the old 1960s-1980s stories that are single episodes, Mission to the Unknown, The Five Doctors and The 1996 Movie. They are single episodes so they use the speechmarks on the articles. Take for example a band's discography. The albums contain itallic font because they contain 'more than one' song. Whilst singles for a band are written normally in speechmarks because they are talking about 'just one' song. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Dalek sighting
At 1:07 in the video for Gramophonedzie's 'Why Don' t You', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8OEtf5r1U --Raboof (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, Dalek Sec toy, never noticed that. The daleks are in more music videos. I just can't label which ones.

I think this should also be put up in the discussions of 'dalek' and 'doctor who spin-off's!

--77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

this should never see daylight, the dalek isn't even a dalek but a toy, not worth mentioning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie42 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Doctor is known to have changed appearance ten distinct times.
I don't know if this can be said anymore, in "The End of Time," The Master ages The Doctor to how he would have looked if he never regenerated. Since the first Doctor doesn't look like that, I think we can safely say he has changed his appearance eleven distinct times... felinoel (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the context of the passage. The passage is about recasting the part and describing it in the programme narrative as a "regeneration". DonQuixote (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As said above, that doesn't count. And a minor point, it was not in 'The End of Time' that occured, it was 'The Sound of Drums' and 'Last of the Time Lords'. Looneyman (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Iris Wildthyme,
I am concerned about the articles on this character, large elements are sourced to self-published books and blogs and the number of articles seem to be out of whack with the coverage in reliable sources. Some eyes would be helpful. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

question re: theme
Sorry that the info I added re Space Patrol doesn't fit the reliability criteria - I will certainly attempt to verify this with a suitable reference. Since I'm in "the colonies" it's not as easy for me to check likely sources -- I don't really know what British publications carried TV guides, other than, presumably, daily and weekly newspapers? I wonder if perhaps a fellow Wikipedian in the UK with easy access to the relevant records might be able to do a bit of quick research and ascertain whether the Space Patrol site is correct, please? A quick trip to the library and a glance at an appropriate Midlands newspaper for April 1963, or a London paper for July, would easily verify this.

I do think it's a reasonable inclusion, and I should point out that the claim for the Dr Who theme in this article is not backed by any citation and, strictly speaking, ought to be removed until it can be validated, particularly since there is a reasonable conflicting claim.

I feel that there is a strong case for Space Patrol being the first show to feature "all electronic" theme and incidental music. I've already located three internet references - the Space Patrol site, allmovie and IMDb - each of which suggest that Space Patrol premiered in the Midlands in April and in London in July 1963 - several months before Dr Who.

As usual, any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. Dunks (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

an online article in the telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581857/Little-known-Dr-Who-facts.html) says that it was Dr Who that had "the first in the world to be made up entirely from electronic sounds" (is this what the debate is on), i can go to a library sometime next week and check old papers though.

also i see no mention of Amy Pond original name (Amelia Pond) so if nobody objects or beats me to it I'll be adding that once I've checked on the theme tune Curtis871 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

well I can't get hold of any old newspapers (except the physical copies they have which don't go back far enough in the national papers). there supposed to be getting access to them on their pc's soon so I'll check. I think I read somewhere that the people own site doesn't count as a good source on wikipedia. but the other two seem to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis871 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr Who Movie
Writing to say the movie part needs to be updated also its been confirmed by Billie Piper since January 2010 that its happening. my source is http://www.themorningstarr.co.uk/2010/01/30/billie-piper-says-doctor-who-movie-is-happening/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie42 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That source is trash/rumour magazine news and not a creditable source. The only confirmation would come from the BBC themselves in an official release. Topsaint 11:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsaint (talk • contribs)

Christmas specials subsections
With the upcoming 2010 christmas special, isn't it time we have a subsection for the christmas special? There has been up until this year 5 not including the 2009 specials. --Cooly123 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see the point, they are listed in the List of Doctor Who serials anyway. magnius (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Species, the Doctor.
'''I can't see how this discussion is about improving this article. See WP:NOTFORUM''' Edgepedia (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC) There have been many, over the eons of time, in the persona of him. His ability to outlast the sands of time, is given. His ability to regenerate is fixed, just as a cat has 9 lives. Someday, he will die, but when that is, I cannot say. If perchance, on your travels, you encounter 'the face of Bow', you might ask him, for he knows all things. As to the theme tune, I can say this, (and it's according to the memory of a near-old man,) the original tune was created by Ron Grainer, in the BBCs' Electronic Workshop, using a variable speed, reel-to-reel, tape recorder. The sound of 'the drums' is made, using a nail, driven into a desktop, then 'stringed' with a large length,(English, General Post Office issue, (A4 size, for the pendants amongst us)) elastic/rubber band. (Do not try this at home, Mummy will be very upset when you drive a nail, into the coffee table, as you attempt to, 'play along'.) True fans, will know this secret.. You can, using an open windpipe and a certain pencil,(I think it was an HB,) annoy the teacher to death, of Friday, by tapping your voicebox, to reproduce 'the drums', while in class. Personally, since I used to bite my nails, could never do the 'girlie' thing, by tapping it out, on my teeth, with a fingernail, with an open mouth. Voyeurs should watch someone, editing a piece of text, those same taps can be discerned. Cars, passing over speed humps, in supermarkets, produce the same cadence. That sound, 'the drums', is in all of us but only them with attenuated hearing can hear it.. Beethovens 5th has it. I cannot prove that Henry Morse heard it, but certain code letters, have that certain rhythm. Learn Morse, one letter, V. I know it was used, by the BBC, for coded messages, 'to our friends in Europe'. Trains, at differing speeeds, whether high or low, tap it out, as they pass over the joints in the tracks. I know that, W H Auden heard them, as he wrote the poem, 'The Night Mail'. (don't take my word for it, read the poem, while listening to the theme tune.) Can you not hear them, the drums? How ironic that, Wiki insists that, this piece should be signed, with 4 tildes.. Do they insist that, they should be typed, in a certain way? Woolywords (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Timelords have 12 regenerations which might be interpreted as a maximum of 13 incarnations. Considering the recreation of the universe seemed to be based on weakly implied theories about memory and the influence of Amy Pond on reality itself, I suspect the current writers can find some thin and poorly reasoned argument to get around it. You do not seem to be suggesting any improvements to the article, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Fæ (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wishing there was a "like" button on Wikipedia :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You stole 30 seconds of my life when I read that paragraph and I want it back. Also, the doctor used up one of his regenerations to just heal himself and dump the rest of the energy into his severed hand to create the half human doctor. Seeing as how Matt Smith is the 11th doctor and one regeneration was used in the hand, he only has one more regeneration left.129.139.1.68 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing definitive about whether that used up a regeneration. In the program it was stated that he "began the process" of regeneration. So, I guess we'll just have to wait and see when the time comes. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that they were saying that he didn't use up a regeneration. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If he could just "begin the process" of regeneration to heal himself, he'd still be the 1st Doctor. Why go all the way through if you can just begin the process, heal your wounds and then turn it off.  Who is "they" that pretty clearly said he didn't use up one.  Because if "they" said that, I remember hearing "them" and "yous guys" saying he did.129.139.1.68 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He could only "turn it off" because he had the hand to pour the energy into. The first doctor didn't nor did any of the others.  The third doctor was forced to regenerate by the Timelords so didn't even have that option.
 * By "they" I mean The BBC, Russell T Davis showrunner at the time and who wrote the episode, and current show runner Steven Moffat who all refer to the current doctor as the 11th not the 12th. But if you don't believe them... Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculously Long Article
Couldn't this article be split up into a few separate ones? At least to differentiate between the new season and the old. This is done in other places on Wikipedia such as the So You Think You Can Dance articles. Some better organization is really needed. 76.169.194.7 (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rassilon
Is Rassilon really of sufficient note to go on the main article about the programme, he's appeared in two story lines? The Ice Warriors, Silurians, Autons or even the Ood have been in more episodes / story lines. I realise the section is about iconicity rather than appearances, but I wouldn't have thought he'd come high on the list when naming Doctor Who adversaries. Perhaps the Time Lords more generically with a mention to Rassilon, but also noting the War Chief, the Rani, the Meddling Monk... See data sheet at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/doctor-who-villains-list PoisonedPigeon (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fandom's fascinated with him, but he isn't really a key adversary at all. Crimsonraptor (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Rani
I've been through the archives and can't find a discussion on this&mdash;how on earth does the Rani get included on a list of the Doctor's "particularly iconic" adversaries? Two appearances do not an icon make; it puts her on an equal footing with the Slitheen, the Weeping Angels, Cassandra, the Macra or Lytton. It's fewer appearances than the Sontarans, the Ice Warriors, the Silurians/Sea Devils/Homo Reptilis or the Autons, and it's only one more appearance than other renegade Time Lords the Doctor has opposed (the Meddling Monk, the War Chief). Fandom does seem to have a certain fascination with her, but that's also true of the Monk or the Zygons, and&mdash;unlike the other villains who get their own subcategories&mdash;she's unknown outside Who fandom (and, presumably, Kate O'Mara fandom). Binabik80 (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * removed. probably supposed to be a joke at all the "x is the rani" (where x is almost any female character in the new series) rumors. 212.20.248.35 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Facebook community page
Why the heck does Facebook's "Doctor Who community page" link to the turkish version of this article? Anyone know how to fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.4.230 (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean a link that appears on Facebook? No, we can't fix that. Probably a Turkish Facebook account? — Edokter • Talk  • 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

film category
I was not quite sure wherelese to ask this but here, but would it be a good idea to make a category for Doctor Who films, including spin-offs (for example, Doctor Who (1996 film), Dr. Who and the Daleks, The Five Doctors, Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans) - these are all films related to Doctor Who. --92.237.84.66 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Five Doctors is a television special, not a film. As far as I can see, there would only be the two Peter Cushing films and the 1996 TV film, with things like Shakedown being (probably) non-canon, and with only a tenuous link to Doctor Who. I don't think there are enough articles to warrant a category. Also, the 1996 TV film is a different kettle of fish from the Cushing films anyway, so collecting them together can serve no constructive purpose, as far as I can see - we  eb  il  oo  bi  l  ( talk ) 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Who Parody in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
I feel oblidged to point out the Dr. Who parody in the AD&D adventure supplement "World of Greyhawk: Castle Greyhawk". The portray the Doctor as a curly-haired gnome accompanied by two attractive female humans who are enamored with him, a fact he is oblivious to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowdancer21b (talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good spot. It's probably one for the Doctor Who spoofs page, rather than this one - as it's not practical to list all cultural references on this page.  PoisonedPigeon (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tardis
Should there be a section/subsection about the tardis? It's an essential plot device that makes the show possible, but it hardly gets a mention. I had to remove some fancrufty stuff about it from a section it didn't belong in, but surely it deserves a few properly-written lines. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It has its own article, which is linked in the intro. DonQuixote (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This page is a mess.
There are way too many "things" and banners and tags or whatever they are called at the top of this page, WAY WAY too many, it looks a complete mess. Can it be simplified or cleaned up?217.44.188.83 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Short version, no.
 * Longer version, no and why would you? Those are the listings of groups/projects this article is involved with, awards, and even a mention for the article being used as a source itself.  It's as pretty as it needs to be.Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

CBC development money
In the introduction it indicates that the CBC only provided development money and was credited as a co-producer for series two and three of the revival. This is incorrect, as the CBC also provided funding for Season 1 and receives screen credit. Could someone make the correction (as I'm editing as an IP# I can't do such a change without it possibly being reverted). 68.146.64.9 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that a touch of paranoia on display at the end there? The way to avoid having your edits reverted is to support your change with references to the information you're adding in reliable sources. It seems you have some evidence. Can you use it here? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Lock
I think it would be a good idea to lock this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.246.130 (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to raise a request at Requests for page protection. At the moment the level of sustained vandalism required does not appear bad enough for protection but that's just my opinion. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

why lock a discussion page? That seems somewhat backward217.44.188.83 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion from six months ago was not about the talk page.Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

-- Why would you lock a discussion ??? Why does the page on Doctor who not include details of where he got the name ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.68.63 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because no one knows what the details are. DonQuixote (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Amy and the DarliksI
I am new to this wikipediasite so forgive me if I make mistakes. What I want to know is when did Amy meet the Darliks? I have watched all of them and don't remember that. Since nobody watchs the show but me I have noone to ask and now it runs around in my head. Does any body know?It is sad because now I probly won't be able to find this site again! lol [email redacted]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.170.2 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's Daleks actually, and Amy met them in "The Pandorica Opens" and "The Big Bang".  — Edokter  ( talk ) — 21:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And Victory of the Daleks, of course. 86.28.121.200 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence of article
I'm finding the second sentence too unreadable for the beginning of the summary. It currenty reads (together with the sentences either side):


 * Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. 'The programme depicts the adventures of a mysterious and eccentric alien, a Time Lord known as the Doctor, who travels through time and space in his time machine, the TARDIS (an acronym for Time And Relative Dimension(s) In Space), which normally appears from the exterior to be a blue 1950s British police box.'  With his companions, he explores time and space, faces a variety of foes and saves civilisations, helping people and righting wrongs.

Back when it was a featured article the opening line was:
 * Doctor Who is a British science fiction television series, produced by the BBC and concerning the adventures of a mysterious time travelling adventurer known only as "The Doctor".

I find that much more readable and useful way into a very detailed article. The detail of being a Time Lord or police box is not so important that it need detract from readability. How about stripping it right back to something along the lines of:
 * Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. The programme depicts the adventures of a mysterious time travelling alien known only as the Doctor.  With his companions, he explores time and space, faces a variety of foes and saves civilisations, helping people and righting wrongs.

The other detail is still further down in the article. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That second sentence is one of the classic Wikipedia run-on sentences, and has always bugged me as well. I do think the detail of the TARDIS could remain in the paragraph, but that second sentence could be broken into a three, or reframed as you suggest.  Drmargi (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit, keeping in mind the desire to avoid run-on sentences. The lead now reads as:"'Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. The programme depicts the adventures of a time-travelling humanoid alien known as the Doctor who explores the universe in a sentient time machine called the TARDIS. Along with a series of companions, he faces a variety of foes while working to save civilisations, help people and right wrongs.'"I've got to dash right now but will detail why the changes were made later tonight. --Ckatz'' chat spy '' 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While Ckatz is dashing, I'll just add that he is right. In the very last part of that, the tense of help and right needs to match that of save, not that of working. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Revelations about the Doctor section
With regard to the statement about the Doctor as half-human, I've now rolled back Jack Sebastian's changes to the prior version. He had removed a note about the controversy over the Eight Doctor statement; this revert should not be taken as a statement against his concerns. However, as we have differing opinions on the value of the statement, I have self-reverted my own attempts at a rewrite in favour of restoring the previous version so as to facilitate discussion here. Note that I'm not looking to debate the question of whether or not the character is half-human, half-turtle, or half-anything; instead, I think that the section here should simply mention the lack of consensus as to the accuracy of the statement, per the expanded text in the main article about the character. Thoughts? --Ckatz chat spy  18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The original reason i removed the statement is because the link - which you have reinstated - says nothing about fan controversy or whatever. As far as I have seen here, no one has offered reliably-sourced statements to that effect. I have no horse in this race, and don't care if The Doctor is half-human or not; I do care if the statement is uncited or fancruft. As there is no solid, reliable source noting a lack of fan consensus (and let's face it, calling something a controversy when all it appears to be is a few chuckleheads on a forum board flaming each other), the statement doesn't belong. I think there is plenty of continuity error in the series; it has been on tv since before most of us were born. Of course there are going to be continuity issues. We don't need to highlight every single one that the fan community feels is earthshaking.
 * While this discussion is ongoing, I'm going to - again - remove the dead link and the information supposedly connected to it. When we have decided what to do, then we can take action to insert something in there. As it is, no reliable citation means no inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: the link appears to not actually be dead. The pertinent information states:


 * '''Q: Is the Doctor half-Human?
 * A: Yes, on his mum's side. It was established in the Doctor Who TV Movie; however purists tend to disregard this.


 * While the link's apparent reinstatement appears to be good, the statement above doesn't imply a controversy. The language that was initially removed said:
 * "Given that there have been no previous references to this information during the original or revived television series, the BBC's "Plot and Continuity" FAQ notes that "(fan) purists tend to disregard this.".
 * and
 * "a statement that led to "controversy amongst fans" (wikilinked to the section on Continuity Curiosities) as to its accuracy."


 * This isn't controversy; its a few old school fans choosing to stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly in the face of the show laying down the law, so to speak. The user originally adding this (and I doubt it was CKatz) likely massaged the facts a little bit to make it seem like more of an issue than it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that I have self-reverted out my changes in favour of the long-standing text, and (per WP:BRD) you need to do so as well. No harm will come of leaving the text in while we discuss this, whereas simply removing it puts the section in contradiction of the main article. The original text was simply:"'Given that there have been no previous references to this information during the original or revived television series, the BBC's 'Plot and Continuity' FAQ notes that '(fan) purists tend to disregard this.'"This is supported by the BBC link; the "controversy" note was my addition (again, now self-reverted in favour of the version prior to either of our edits regarding this matter). Also, it's not quite so simple as "a few old school fans choosing to stick their fingers in their ears"; note that the revised series contradicts the one-time-statement in the TV movie, as do comments from the producer of the revived series. Given that this is a reasonably important detail about the character, the text here should reflect what the main article covers (albeit in a much more condensed form, of course). --Ckatz chat spy  19:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's my problem, CKatz - you addition of the word "controversy" adds heat where there is no citable proof of such. You may think it controversial, but the single RS source you cite does not. And feel free to supply citations that support your statement that the revised series directly contradicts the movie's statement; I don't recall seeing such.
 * The crux of this, as I see it, is that you feel that there should be far more emphasis on what is essentially a minor continuity issue. If it were as "controversial" as you say, start producing a great many sources than you have. That would support your contention of the "reasonably important" nature of the material. I am also concerned with UNDUE issues here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jack, please stop - you complain that I am "edit warring" (your words, not mine) but you are repeatedly reworking the section to put across your take on it. The BBC site does not limit the "purist" view simply to older series. --Ckatz chat spy  00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sought to keep the issue of your edit-ewarring on your talk page for the most part, but when you complain that I am not following BRD and then fail to actually pursue any discussion, you have only yourself to blame for the results. I would urge you to consult with others on the wording of the BBC faq; they say that purists tend to disagree. They do not say purists of the revised series. They do not say it is controversial. They simply say that purists tend to disregard the canon that he is half-human (and when the BBC says something is true, then it is canon, period).
 * However, lets not get drawn into a discussion regarding canon which is wholly immaterial to the matter. What is on point is that the use of the word purists allude to those who believe in a "purer" essence of Doctor Who. By definition, purists are reflecting on the past - the purer essence of what Dr. Who is and is not. It seems too far a stretch to include purists from the revised series, specifically because it came after the movie. therefore, it's appropriate to refer to the fans of the original series.
 * I would ask that you - prior to keep reverting - use this discussion page as it was intended, and seek a resolution here. Understand that constantly reverting is only going to add unnecessary drama and make finding a workable solution that much more difficult. I've cut you a break in the past and not reported you for 3RR. Let's try to keep it amicable and workj here to find a resolution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cut a break"?!? Please - you've repeatedly reverted in your own opinion, yet you're acting as if it is all on me. Note that you've made these invalid claims re: 3RR while completely glossing over the fact that I actually restored the page to the version prior to either of our changes, per BRD. Despite that, you continued to change the page to reflect your own preferred version instead of leaving the original.
 * As for the "earlier" part, you are drawing your own conclusions there, as well as speculating as to when the BBC FAQ was even written. I have made it a more neutral "in the television series". I would hope that you would respect your own request above regarding reverts. Otherwise, it would seem that we would need to remove it altogether and leave only "The BBC's FAQ for the programme notes that 'purists tend to disregard this'", because the BBC comment does not in any way support limiting it to only one era of the show. --Ckatz chat spy  04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you support that assertion, CKatz? I believe I fully supported my view, which actually uses the citation. Perhaps we are at loggerheads in regards to this issue. Since you seem to be growing a lot more prickly than necessary about this, perhaps it is time to bring in a neutral third party. Please feel free to file the RfC, as I remain unconvinced of your unsupported argument. Until then, I've edited in a more neutral version, since we cannot find common ground on this issue. It has the virtue of being accurate without being specific (which we cannot in the face of exacting and explicit citation). Maybe leave it be until you find a neutral third party to mediate. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated earlier, the BBC entry doesn't support your text about he earlier series; that is your own speculation/interpretation. As for being "prickly", please note that you're the one making comments about reporting and "cutting a break". In the absence of such completely unnecessary and unwarranted claims, the discussion would certainly be far more productive. --Ckatz chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I readily admit that I respond rather poorly to editors who repeatedly revert without discussion. You (with your 70k edits) may not have been aware of that entirely natural reaction. Those who revert three times in less than a day (and even resetting to a prior version ''still counts as a revert, as you are removing another's edits in doing so) should know better. Forgive me for negatively interpreting what may have been a simple, overtired accident on your part.
 * Anyhoo, let's reboot. My take on "purist" infers that someone is paying heed to a purer version of something, instead of something less pure. Are you getting something other than that? If so, explain. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Really I think this is a nit-picky detail that doesn't need to be mentioned at all. There are many ways writers could explain away any admission that the Doctor is half human.  The only thing that is clear is they have not referenced this in other episodes or such in a way that gives this admission any significant meaning.Bill C. Riemers, PhD. (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)