Talk:The Rani (Doctor Who)/Archive 1

The Meaning of her name
It might be worth mentioning that the word "Rani" is the female form of the word "Raja", that is, Queen (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rani). As "Maharani" it was used as a title for Queen Victoria, as the Empress of India (mentioned in Kipling's "Life's Handicap", for instance. Based on the colonial background of the word, I'm fairly sure that the writers would have known the meaning of the word when they chose it, so it would be interesting to point the meaning out to compare with the other renegade timelord names- "the Doctor" and "the Master".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.172.250 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you need to cite, it's mentioned both here http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62742 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_of_the_Rani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.172.250 (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alive or dead?
''In The End of the World the Doctor stated that his homeworld had been destroyed and that he was the last of the Time Lords. Whether the Rani was present on Gallifrey and was killed along with the rest is uncertain.''

Technically the Rani is a Time Lady, as it says earlier in the article, so both she and the Doctor could both be alive within the confines of that statement. sheridan 14:11, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * Isn't that stretching it a bit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs) 19:54, January 3, 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's stretching it a lot ;) 87.194.60.87 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As we saw, even had she been there, escape was possible when the timelock was lifted in The End of Time. However, given her renegade status, if she were caught and prosecuted, it's doubtful she would have been incarcerated on Gallifrey anyway, when prisons like Shada existed. In any circumstance, I believe we'll see her return to the screen within the next few seasons provided the series continues. It's hard to argue against her return when they went as far as digging up the Macra (no pun intended). --24.185.34.96 (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, there was an EDA reference to her by Father Kreiner in The Ancestor Cell that her skull was one of the Faction's Time Lord trophies. I give little weight to that outcome (She's too valuble to kill off permanently), but that isn't mentioned in the article...so I guess I'll pop that in. --24.185.34.96 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Podcast
I've listened carefully to the Last of the Time Lords podcast and did not hear any mention of the Rani. If I am wrong please let me know exactly where it is mentioned so I can check it out? &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try 49:50 onwards - Phil Collinson (producer) says that the hand was that of Tracy Simson, the Production Manager, and then Russell T Davies laughs very loudly before saying "Hand of the Rani" (said in a not-at-all-serious manner?); PC says "Hand of the Rani" again as RTD continues over him. Too throwaway a comment to be authoritative, I would have said.  Bencherlite 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh so they do. Yeah it wasn't said very seriously at all, also RTD said it wouldn't be picked up on in the next series and gave the impression he wouldn't be picking up on it at all himself. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire podcast isn't in a serious tone. Just because they aren't picking up on it in the next season doesn't mean that that it's irrelevant. The laughing is over the fact it's the hand of their producer. Saying he doesn't doesn't let on to whose hand it is is not at all accurate and is entirely misleading.

Article needs to be re-titled?
It seems to me that people keep referring to Rani as "the Rani" We need to decide if this use of the particle "the" is a part of her name (and therefore the article), or if all superfluous "the"s should be edited out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claytonian (talk • contribs) 11:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rani isn't her name, it's a title, so she is the Rani, not Rani (like the Doctor and the Master). However, per Wikipedia naming conventions, the title of the article is simply "Rani", like Doctor and Master --Brian Olsen (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing Lock and Miss Foster
I suggest that this article be locked from editing. It changes every couple minutes with speculation about The Rani and Miss Foster being the same person. Something has to be done.

A mention of Miss Foster wouldn't be so bad. As long as it is clearly stated as fan theory. Just as John Simm and Mr. Saxon were being linked to The Master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Three-Tail (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But Mr Saxon was the master {92.235.70.183 (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)}.

Unconfirmed Rumor?
According to this article, Amy Winehouse will be reprising the role in the upcoming season. Unsure of the validity, but thought it should be noted... Jlricherson (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * oh, I guess it was really an April Fools joke. Ha, don't I look silly, and the three other people who read this article. Jlricherson (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse is dead now. :'( --Finister2 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Casting Rumors
Let me try to explain the point here. Rumors are not the material for Wikipedia, unless the rumor itself is notable. What I mean there is that a rumor is only notable when it is a persistent note covered by valid sources. The fact that tabloids and fan-sites are copying the rumor from site to site does not make this notable; it just makes it a rumor. If a valid news source was to cover this in-depth then it would be a different matter, but that is not the case. There is a mention of a previous rumor on the page largely because the BBC publicly and officially responded to it. As of yet there is no official response and there is no valid (aka - non-tabloid, non-fansite) coverage of it, let alone any statements from any of the parties involved. I know that when it gets into the realm of popular fiction people on Wikipedia tend to forget this, but Wikipedia is not here to be used to cover every cutting-edge rumor, and especially not when there is no valid citation for such (on a factual or notability basis). If you have a suggestion for an addition, please discuss it here, because the endless reverts back and forth are a pain in the ass. This last revert in particular is irksome because it removed previous valid information to replace it with speculation and rumor. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My perspective is that when a rumor recurs on a regular basis in several different sources (including legitimate news sources such as the Daily Telegraph), it becomes notable as a rumor. We're not reporting that the Rani will be appearing, we're stating that tabloids have regularly reported that the Rani will be appearing.


 * For reference's sake, here's the version I proposed putting in the story, with citations:


 * British tabloid newspapers have perennially reported that different actresses were slated appear in the new series of Doctor Who as the Rani. Actresses rumored to play the part include Zöe Lucker (2006), Joan Collins (2007) and Gillian Anderson (2009)., none of these reports have proven accurate.


 * I think that brief mention is appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that brief mention is appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose part of my argument is that any information that requires the word "tabloid" likely should not be included on Wikipedia. Think of it along the lines of precedent; how many articles are you aware of that make regular inclusions of tabloid statements?  Your version is a fair slight better than some, no argument, but even as rumors go this one is largely unfounded by reputable sources and the Daily Telegraph does nothing other than to rehash the same statements. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion of how an article's subject is treated by tabloid media isn't as uncommon as you might think. For example, the FA Katie Holmes discusses the tabloid fascination with Holmes' relationship with Tom Cruise and their daughter, and in so doing cites the tabloid magazine US Weekly.  Similarly, the FA Diane Keaton mentions how she became "a regular subject of tabloid magazines and media" when she was dating Warren Beatty.  I agree that the rumors are ultimately unfounded, but since they've been reported as rumors in more reliable media, they're notable in themselves.  We're not making any claim about the rumor's accuracy; we're just saying that this story keeps coming up in the tabloid press. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Adding a short, cited bit might also help forestall the continual addition of unsourced and/or badly formatted material by every passing well-intentioned anon.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else have any feelings about including this (in the extremely limited, cited version I propose above)? I'd like to restore it, but I won't do so without support. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't think that it's notable enough, but the version mentioning (very briefly) the three rumors is better than a full discussion of the latest one. Still not desirable, though. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to mention it, NNDB does have Gillian Anderson listed as The Rani for 2010. However, I do not know how reliable it is because I am not aware where they get most of their information. 173.12.172.149 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about as reliable and making crap up and posting it on forums. magnius (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Time LADY not Lord
Can someone tell me why she's called a Time Lord instead of a Time Lady throughout the article. Can someone change it, please? I would but Wikipedians are harsh and undo every change I make. Always. It gets annoying.


 * There are more than a few reasons. First is that there has never been much of a consensus about "Time Lady".  Then there is the fact that it is of little consequence; "Time Lord" is the name used by members of the race, any the sparse times that any have used other phrases is outweighed by the rational use and meaning of "Time Lord".  Do you refer to women as "Huwoman" instead of "Human"?  Yes, asinine example on my part, but I just hope you get my point.
 * I can understand frustration with edits, but edits like the one you want here are generally termed as controversial edits and would (in the realm of polite interaction) require notice or discussion on the relevant talk pages. Signing your posts and the like will also help as well, because regardless of policy there is a certain viewpoint towards a lot of "anon editors".
 * Hope this helps you. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)