Talk:The Sound of Drums/Archive 2

Fan-cr*p
Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harold Saxon
Will has removed an edit by another user that named Saxon as Harold Saxon. I do not see the point of this, he was called Harold Saxon in The Lazarus Experiment the name is canon and removing it is pointless and diminishes the article. Kelpin 12:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a huge issue. He's been referred to as "Saxon", "Mr Saxon" and "Harold Saxon" in the episodes to date, but not as "Mr Harold Saxon"; while I don't doubt the last is a valid way to refer to him, it's less wieldy than simply "Mr Saxon", which is the name that's been used to title the story arc.  Mark H Wilkinson 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean, you could always just cope.--Rambutan (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blair resignation
Should note of this be made in the article, or is it verging on OR? It's a rather freaky coincidence, and not at all intended by the production staff, but it's still interesting. Will (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A Times reporter has made the connection, so that could be used as a source.--Rambutan (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But what has Tony Blair resigning got to do with anything? There won't be a general election and Brown will become the next PM...unless Brown is actually Mr Saxon in disguise! Now that would be something... Gammondog 12:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially since Blair has seemingly been dead in the Whoniverse since "Aliens of London"--OZOO (vote saxon) 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blair steps down from the same office at the same time we see Saxon becoming Prime Minister. That's why. Will (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but in the Whoniverse, the previous Prime Minister was Harriet Jones, not Blair. - Chris McFeely 19:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She used to be a back bencher in his governement before "Aliens of London" she decribes herself as not being one of the babes.Me lkjhgfdsa 21:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My tuppence: it's outside the scope of the article. Mark H Wilkinson 12:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

Please stop mentioning the Whoniverse! Doctor Who is supposed to be and has been for the last 40 years, set in our reality.

There must have been a prime minister between Harriet Jones and Mr Saxon. Mr Saxon arrived around when Jones lost power - and Saxon was a minister in the later government, The Tribe of Gum 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his acts as Defence Minister are in the fake history he has given himself, but I might be wrong. 138.243.129.136 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that there was a Prime Minister between Jones and Saxon is outside the scope of this article, but it might be worth noting in Harriet Jones' article, or in the section of the Master's article that deals with the current storyline. For example "Harriet Jones' immediate successor is unknown, but she was eventually suceeded by the Master under the guise of Harold Saxon". I think the Master was Minister of Defence during the events of "The Runaway Bride", as he gave the Army the order to destroy the Webstar ship. Incidentally, that means the Doctor and the Master were working together during that episode. Gallifreyan Summoner 19:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Blair was probably killed by the Slitheen in Aliens of London. Or maybe not. Whatever the case, since then, there has been no Tony Blair in the Whoniverse. End of. Seriphyn 12:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blair had not announced a date for his departure when this episode was recorded, but was expected to stand down some time after the local elections of early May. Doctor Who in general doesn't strive needlessly for consistency so, for instance, you have Tom MacRae in Rise of the Cybermen putting a reference to Tony Blair into Mickey's mouth, while in Aliens of London the whole apparatus of government had been wiped out, and Harriet Jones was Prime Minister at the time of the The Christmas Invasion.  Making sense of all this is pointless, just sit back and enjoy the ride.


 * Talking of which, one of my favorite episodes recently was Blink, written by Steven Moffat who also brought us The Empty Child and The Girl In The Fireplace. Is anybody else enjoying his Jekyll? --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No because Jekyll is a hilariously bad drama that only a child would enjoy. And if you believe making sense of all this is pointless then please don't 'contribute' to this page. RTD Please Go Already 10:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but on an irrelevant side-note one of my best mates watches Jekyll. That said I did see the first episode and didn't rate it much.

On the other hand, note the deliberately ironic use of Things can only get better on DW Confidential as a music cue over footage of Saxon's election victory. (Blair's theme tune in 1997). The resonances in the show with Blair's resignation may be fortuitous; but resonances with his first election are no mistake. ("Education, education, education", anyone?)

Also, is it just me, or is John Simm channelling Jon Culshaw from Dead Ringers for much of this episode? I think we should be told. Jheald 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing up this episode
OK... More exposition on the Time War and the Master than there has ever been. First black Time Lord? More U.N.I.T. More on Torchwood. And soooooooo much more. The Master was reborn as the ultimate warrior. UNIT has a SHEILD Helicarrier, designed by the Master, the Master went nuts as a child. First site of Gallifrey since...? Paradox machine... Master eating Jelly Babies. AlanD 18:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Small point though... surely that would be the effect of a few thousand years on him?AlanD 18:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol we'd have to make a minor change ot one of the torchwood articles, on personnel(The doctor finds out in this episode that jack works for torchwood.


 * I don't recall him being reborn as the ultimate warrior, just that the Time Lords knew he'd be the best warrior in the circumstances. --77.99.30.226 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Time Lords only resurrected me because they knew I'd be the perfect warrior for a time war..." (emphasis added). That's the word the article should use in my opinion, as we don't know any more, at least until next week.  My speculation is that Russell T Davies sees it as part of his mission to try to work the relative oddities of the TV Movie into continuity with classic series canon.  (Bit pointless IMHO, as it's already given us mysterious powers in the heart of the TARDIS, and a Bad Wolf dea ex machine.)  But the assumption should then be that the Time War was starting in earnest around the time of the TV Movie, and the Time Lords pulled the Master out of the Eye of Harmony (which alone has the power to provide a new cycle of regenerations if it's survived according to The Deadly Assassin).  Things must have been at least as desperate as they were in The Five Doctors for them to count on a renegade (in every sense) who was scheming and increasingly unhinged. OK, that's my opinion, but I hope it provides useful thoughts before editing.  --Cedderstk 16:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wanting to discuss the whole setting up of the whole paradox machine - as in - ??? is it my imagination of is there linking back to the movie here - opening up of the ye and stuff... AND we have another companion running off while the doctor in major trouble - where's the tardis again???Crescent 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain Scarlet
Is it me or does UNITS base reminded anyone of Cloudbase from Captain Scarlet

It does look similar. 82.12.86.64 19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also very similar to the helicarrier from Marvel Comics. However, the Radio Times for this week specifically refers to it as a Captain Scarlet reference, although it's not clear whether that's just the reviewer making a connection or if it's been stated by the production team. Kelvingreen 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, Marvel Comics publshed Doctor Who Magazine and thus Doctor Who comics for nearly two decades. So it is quite likely that it was also intended as a reference to the SHIELD Helicarrier from Marvel Comics -- no matter what the Radio Times claims -- especially as RTD has repeatedly made references to untelevised continuity.  So I feel that my notes regarding the Helicarrier should be restored to the main article.IanThal 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the idea in requiring a direct "this is intentional" statement from the creators is so that 'common sense' isn't the only decider for what's a reference and what isn't, since people will have vastly different ideas on which connections and references are relevant. In light of that, you'd need some sort of source saying this was intentional on their part. --77.99.30.226 13:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm more than happy to have information on Cloudbase or the Helicarrier in the article if we can get confirmation that it's intentional. Otherwise there's no point, as it'll just be removed as speculation. Kelvingreen 14:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that given the long prior involvement of Marvel Comics with the non-televised Doctor Who, including cameo appearances of Lethbridge-Stewart and UNIT in the X-Men comic books, it is hard to conceive of the parallel as unintentional, especially since SHIELD is sometimes also portrayed as an international agency. Though since Marvel has not been connected with the Doctor Who franchise in over a decade,it may be impolitique for the current production team to officially acknowledge them.IanThal 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Was it mentioned as a definite reference on the Dr Who Confidential episode? That seems a likely source, but I didn't see it. Did you?  Or is there a ref on the podcast commentary? Neddyseagoon - talk 12:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to conceive of this as coming from elsewhere than Captain Scarlet. But that doesn't make it a reference unless and until we get verification. The most likely explanation seems, to me, that the CGI wizards for Doctor Who produced a lovely picture of an airborne carrier.  It's much easier to do that than depict a carrier amid waves with a realistic seascape, so this isn't rocket science. The Valiant does seem to resemble Cloudbase.


 * Image:Doctor Who - Valiant.jpg
 * Image:CS-Cloudbase 1.jpg
 * http://marvel.com/universe/S.H.I.E.L.D._Helicarrier

--Tony Sidaway 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) --Tony Sidaway 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look much like either of these. And the floating/flying base trope is far from being isolated to these two examples.  Mark H Wilkinson 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The SHIELD Helicarrier (first published appearance, 1965) predates the Captain Scarlet (1968) Cloudbase by three years.IanThal 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, not meaning to spoil the party or anything- but is this really going to be of massive help or importance in regards to building an encyclopaedic article..? Dan-the-man278 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True but it was mentioned in the Fear Factor on BBC too. BTW that isn't the best nor a definative image of the S.H.E.I.L.D. Helicarrier (no offence Tony, just Marvel's choice of art, ug) it has appeared in many forms and some indeed have resembled the Valiant more... Although it also makes me think of Sky Captain... As you said though without anything beyond the Fear Factor comments we're pretty much stumped. BUT I think this may end up being relevent and Tony's sourcing of the images may prove valuable. This week's Confidential focussed on the Master it is possible they may do more on the Valiant next week and could mention their influences then. AlanD 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth Wall
Should there be a mention (like in Triva or something) that the beat of the four drums is the theme tune to the show, so this is in a way breaking the fourth wall?
 * Sure. If you can find a source. Will (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only the very start of the theme tune, but it is part of it.
 * Yes, but we need a source. Will (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By that reckoning, we would need a source for every single statement made regarding the plot. Wolf of Fenric 00:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to use primary sources. That's what the plot and continuity sections feed on - and we don't need to cite episode to do it. When it gets to the line between the real world and fiction, e.g. outside references, then we need to be able to source those adequately. Will (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Freema Agyeman talks about the beat of the drums being the theme tune on the podcast that goes with this episode. I believe the podcast is the same as the DVD commentary. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the drums could be from We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Towards the beginning of chapter (called records in there - it's structured like a diary) two, there's a reference to a beat of "Tra-ta-ta-tam, Tra-ta-ta-tam" which plays as the subjects march into a new day. Later on, the book talks about hearing the constant emissions of the "music factory". It kinda fits too, both worlds being horrible dystopias and all. 82.21.111.143 13:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is an example of breaking the fourth wall, it's more like a Leitmotif, underscoring the connection between the Master and the Doctor by having the Master use part of a musical theme associated with the Doctor. This rythym is more strongly noticable in older episodes of Doctor Who than it is in the current music that is used.--RLent (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An SFX magazine special (Doctor Who Special 4) has an interview with Freema Agyeman in which she mentions that the drums are the theme tune (apparently she originally went 1. 2-3-4. But she didn't realise 1.2.3.4. in the script meant the drum beat in the theme tune). But the material probably isn't on the Internet, so I can't provide a hyperlink. It backs up the podcast though. Digifiend (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, saying that the beats are the theme tune is one thing, mildly interesting as it is - but saying that the use of the beats in this episode was a deliberate link to the theme tune is a different matter and requires a source to back it, specifically, up. For example, saying, "The Doctor said You work for Torchwood? is a reference to The Doctor Who Fan's Blog which also used that phrase," is different to saying, "The Doctor said You work for Torchwood?; The Doctor Who Fan's Blog also used that phrase." Only the former (if sourced, obviously) could have any place in the article as it is the only one which draws a link. —TreasuryTag —t —c 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Year figure
Giving the year 100 trillion in numerical form might be best avoided, since it is open to debate which manner of trillion is being used here. The current figure on the homepage 100,000,000,000,000 is a representation of an American one hundred trillion (one hundred thousand billion). However, under British convention, it would be one hundred billion billion, each billion being a million million, giving a value of 100*10^24 years. GullibleKit 20:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Russell uses the short scale: e.g. The End of the World is "5 billion" years in the future, not "5,000 million". Will (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the UK now officially uses the "modern UK" naming, and many theorists predict the universe will extinguish in 1016 years onward, I think it's pretty to asume 100,000,000,000,000. --Edokter (Talk) 00:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Billion was pretty clearly 109 in The End of the World, and the stars are gone in Utopia, but don't forget that the thermodynamics of the Whoniverse are not what they seem, as entropy is being exported large-scale through Charged Vacuum Emboitments. --Cedderstk 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

other things
Is it worth mentioning the viewing of the vortex by the Doctor and the Master in their youths and the effect it had on them? Also is it worth mentioning that the Master designed the Valient? I'm assuming a lot of other bits and bobs from the episode have been placed on the Master and Doctor pages as they may be too much for an episode mention? I know it is a bit daft but this is another episode where the Doctor enoys chips... sounds daft but he is alien so it may be worth bringing up. Geez there was loads, I'm still trying to remember things, loads of back story more than usual... AlanD 00:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ninth Doctor eats chips at the close of End of the World. It's not particularly significant.IanThal 12:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact it's hard to think of anything less significant :). I notice entries for Banana and Jelly babies at List of Doctor Who items, so that could be the place for it.  All depends on the dietary habits of the writers, I think.  Valiant design seems relevant to the plot, though. --Cedderstk 16:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ian the fact he ate them then too and made a point about it was what I was getting at. For a human enjoying chips is a normal thing for an alien to twice make such a human deal about craving them and then enjoying them seems moderately worth noting. It was clearly scripted (on both occasions) to stand out. AlanD 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC) BTW no need to be so rude.


 * On the subject of random things that may be relevent, Martha's guess that the Master is the Doctor's brother, and the Doctor's dismissal of the idea, is a dig at a popular fan-theory. Worth mentioning? Daibhid C 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not believe I was rude, I meant only to be terse. However, I apologize if I ruffled any feathers.  The Doctor dismissing a popular fan-theory is highly significant.  That the Doctor and companions have chips for dinner in an abandoned factory when they are wanted fugitives seems not to be so significant, since they would unlikely want to sit down at a restaurant for a meal. He may very well enjoy chips, but given the circumstances, it would be one of the most practical things to eat.IanThal 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Master-as-brother thing is very obvious, but unfortunately, unless confirmed Moffat-style on OG or similar, we can't really mention it. --77.99.30.226 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suspected as much. Daibhid C 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Work for other people to do
I'm not big on editing, so here's stuff for people to add.

This used both Time Lord costumes, the original black and white jumpsuits from the Troughton era for the Young Master, as well as the elaborate ones from the later series for the adult Time Lords.

The Cloister Bell in the TARDIS is ringing constantly when they are examining the Paradox device. --70.253.202.209 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Toclafane: robots or aliens?
Until we have a confirmation on this, we need to use a neutral word, like "entities", "beings". Could someone suggest a better one?--Rambutan (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they are the Last of the Time Lords? All six billion of them, The Tribe of Gum 08:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As funny and terribly depressing as that would be, thinking up a neutral name would be a better course of action. It says entites now, so this isn't a problem. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence in the episode to suggest they are robots. On the contrary they talk like children and the Master refers to them as "My children".  Whilst it seems unlikely he's being literal, this would tend to suggest he sees them as infantile organics.  The only remote pointer to them being robotic is the metal casing that covers them, however both the Daleks and Cybermen have this and both have an organic lifeform inside.Kelpin 11:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I would use a thesaurus to find a word which implies equally life and automatonishness, but I wouldn't know where to begin!--Rambutan (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On a serious point - you are only debating something that will be in the article for less than a week. So I don't think it matters too much for now, The Tribe of Gum 08:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it does matter now, because the article can't just look like a pile of cr*p all week!--Rambutan (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well whether they are robotic or organic, they come from another planet so they are still aliens and so could be referred to as such. I fail to see what's wrong with referring to them as entities though. Just out of curiosity, Someguy, what would be funny and depressing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.194 (talk • contribs)


 * It's a paradox. The use seemed appropriate. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no source that they're from another planet.
 * "Aliens" refers to living organisms in the general use of the term.--Rambutan (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a point of (perhaps some sort of) interest, any ideas on why the Doctor would be 'heartbroken' when he finds out what/who they are?Dan-the-man278 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Toclafane are referred to as being like the 'bogeyman. As in a story told to scare young timelords. The master said "do you remember all those fairytales about the Toclafane". Perhaps this has something todo with why the doctor would be heartbroken. And maybe the master has recreated them based on the fairytales?--82.13.188.95 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See this page.--Rambutan (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops... (embarassed grin whilst reading the "not a discussion forum" section of the page)... Dan-the-man278 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the point is that within the story they are refered to as aliens (the whole plot revolves around Harold Saxon's announcement that he is making First Contact with an alien race)? Isn't that appropriate point and reference just now? No matter what is revealed next week at THIS point in time all the characters and the story have revealed about them is that they are an alien race. If it turns out that they are robots or the Time Lords back from the dead then that gets mentioned in next week's article ("It is revealed that the Toclafane were not an alien race as previously stated but are in fact the science experiement of a 9 year old genius from Grimsby that attracted the attention of Mr Saxon when he was on his election campaign."... or whatever).AlanD 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We should write about them in out-of-universe perspective, which means that once the identity of the Tocaflane is known we can revisit the descriptive and plot sections of this article and update it so it fits. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Without a source, they cannot be referred to as either robots or aliens in the article. This speculation isn't getting us anywhere.--Rambutan (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Master refers to them as an alien race in his TV address to the UK. That is your source.  Kelpin 11:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He also calls them the Toclafane, and we all know that's not their real names. Will (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How do we know that's not their real name? He also calls the device he uses a "laser screwdriver" but I didn't see him put up any shelves with it.  Yet that comment has been left in the article.  I don't think you can dismiss what The Master says as a lie for the purposes of this document until its proven in a future episode.  Kelpin 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he stole the name from a Gallifreyan fairy tale? Phone conversation between Master and Doctor confirms. Will (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Doctor doesn't believe him doesn't mean The Master is wrong. Perhaps these creatures are / were the inspiration for the timelord fairy tale.  We don't know that is speculation.  What I have stated is fact.  (I could also have added that they are scared of the dark which also ties in with The Master's statement that they are children not robots). This is not a forum or a debating society.  If next week's episode proves they are robots the entry can always be changed then.  As things stand all the facts point to them being organic.  Kelpin 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, since there's doubt, there MUST be a reliable source. What's so complicated?--Rambutan (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I really can't see why there is any doubt on this issue. Robots are not scared of the dark, they don't talk like children and no one in the episode said they were robots.  On the other hand they were referred to as aliens at least once.  I think this is a complete non-issue.Kelpin 11:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is what I said before. For all the talk of reliable sources it seems conveinent to ignore THE MOST reliable source of all (the episode) when someone doesn't like what it said. They were not refered to as robots and they were referred to as aliens. Even if something else is established next week the FACTS for this week's write-up should stand as them being aliens (although a few brief words to say this was later disproven and a link to the next episode would make sense). We have to use the facts established in the episode... which is normally the stick at least one person who is arguing against this uses to hit others with when it is something they want.AlanD 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally it IS their real name for the purpose of this episode's write up as it is the name they are given. Mr Saxon is not The Master's real name but the episode and previous episodes refer to him by that name (rightly). We shouldn't be getting into speculation. It is the name given to them in the episode so, for this episode, it is their name. This tends to be the norm when things like this are written up. AlanD 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know robots don't speak like children and aren't scared of the dark? Maybe these are emotionally immature robots or maybe nyctophobic eunuch robots with high-pitched squeaky voice and a habit of re-iterating themselves ("run and run and run.")

Has anyone noticed the previous episode! What happened! Those humans went off to that signal "utopia"! I thaught that these Toclafane could posibly be those humans who were sent off t "utopia" became the Toclafane. Just before the master escapes he pulls out a memory thing out of the computer! The signal misteriously stops? This shows utopia does not exist. Y would the master send them somewhere for no reason? This place is a factory where humans are turned into Toclafane! They aren then sent back in time and appear on earth! Thats y its the end of the universe at 100 billion! The whole of that time is sent back in time to the 21st centry.


 * First off, the comment above is just speculation at this point. We will know soon enough whether the rocket in Utopia is related to the last two episodes in any way.  (Reminder, though: benevolent Yana worked hard to send those people someplace he thought was good.)  Second, and unrelated, "Martha" in the newest entry on her MySpace blog, calls the Toclafane "creatures", and indicates she knows who or what they are at the time of her writing the entry (presumably during or just after LoTL). That would seem to be a source for non-robots until we learn more. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 01:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that as some of this discussion is turning into a forum we should take it to an actual Doctor Who Forum. I use the one here http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ - its free to join and there is already a discussion on this topic there. We can then return to this page after the episode has aired by which time I'm sure we'll have a lot more information. Kelpin 15:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the rift opening instead of "These are my friends"
I think the Voodoo Child scene is pretty epic, you know, with the sky being torn in half. What do people think of having that picture when the rift is at full size with the Toclafane pouring out instead of the current one? Too spoiler-rific? Seriphyn 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that almost seems less spoiler-rific. Sounds like a great idea.pjh3000 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is now the rift forming, though I didn't add it.

82.12.86.64 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoilers don't matter. We're writing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

President Winters
President Winters describes himself as "President-Elect"--this appears to be a script error, as the president-elect has no political authority and would be unlikely to be flying in Air Force One. The term refers to someone who has won the U.S. General Elction but has not yet been innaugurated as President-- this leaves a two and half month period where the President-Elect's predecessor still exercises authority. It appears that RTD meant "Elected President" instead. Colin Stinton, who played President Winters, is a Canadian by birth and might not have noticed an error in the script. I made note of this error under Continuity. Why was it excised?IanThal 13:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because goofs aren't listed here, being a form of trivia that don't have the (potentially) redeeming factor of a larger context, which I suppose is why the Doctor Who articles get away with so many bullet points in the first place. And, of course, it's a bit of an assumption (albeit a fair one) that President Elect even means the same thing in the Dr. Who universe. For what it's worth, the Prime Minister is also referred to as being of Great Britain rather than the UK, which is even less understandable a mistake. --77.99.30.226 13:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Many American viewers would assume that Great Britain and United Kingdom are synonyms.  While many British viewers would assume "President Elect" is just a fanciful synonym for the more commonly used title.  Still, in the case of the article on The Shakespeare Code there were quite a few notes distinguishing between actual historical references and decisions made by the production team.IanThal 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait for more information in interviews, I think. You may be right, it may well be an error in Davies's script (and I don't think "Great Britain" was due to David Tennant's position on Northern Ireland, either).  However, my immediate inference on hearing "President Elect" was that something had recently happened to the President and Vice-President (impeachment?).  Could Winters have been Speaker of the House and simultaneously President Elect? More for Outpost Gallifrey than the article, I'd suggest.  --Cedderstk 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In instances where an American President dies in office or in the rarer instances where he is forced out of office (it's only happened once) the procedure is not to have an election, but to immediately swear in a new president based on the rules of succession outlined in the Twenty-fifth Amendment. So there would only be a "President-Elect" if the episode takes place after the November 2008 General Election and before January 20th, 2009.  I think this is just an example of RTD not researching what is a confusing topic even for many Americans.IanThal 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, for a start, if you have been paying attention to New Who, this episode is set in 2008 and so perhaps it is between November 2008 and, January 2009. I believe that RTD used the term President-Elect because Doctor Who is supposed to be set in the real world and I don't think we're going to see George W Bush killed by aliens in the near future (we can only hope though). As for the fact that the President-Elect flew in Air Force One, well you'd better take that up with RTD, although I think you'll find he doesn't give a monkeys about accuracy or continuity.

I'm convinced that the article should refer to him as President-elect Winters. The character clearly states that this is his title. I understand that Air-Force One is the call sign assigned to a plane carrying the incumbent president, which would make the use of it in the episode seem incorrect. However, the plane was referred to as Air-Force One by the newsreader, not by any of the officials, and it seems that there have been historical occasions when a president-elect has used a plane carrying the call sign Air-Force One http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html I think that in lieu of any official clarification, we should be using the term President-elect.Wikifuzzygum 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering he appeared "just after the downfall of Harriet Jones" "eighteen months ago", it would seem the episode is unlikely to be between the dates that would allow him to be President-elect in our world. Probably just another difference (though perhaps an unintentional one) between this world and the Whoniverse. --77.99.30.226 11:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't make sense. He must've been around before the downfall of Harriet Jones, because he was the one that fired at the Sycorax ship. I'll have to look up the dates, and see what the established time-line is, but that doesn't change the fact that the character refers to himself as President-elect. Let's wait for official confirmation, but until then, we should use what the character says.Wikifuzzygum 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Have you seen Runaway Bride? It's the Webstar he shoots down in 2007, in Runaway Bride, not the Sycorax in '06 (that was Torchwood). He appeared shortly after Christmas Invasion and was Defence Secretary by next Christmas. --77.99.30.226 12:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course that is right, thanks for noting it. However, I think my initial point regarding the President-elect still stands - he calls himslef that, and should therefore be noted as that in the article.Wikifuzzygum 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, I'm not arguing that. I was just clarifying some stuff. --77.99.30.226 13:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that the Fact file cast list and every reference to the character in the episode, except for that one line of dialogue, calls him the President, not the President-Elect. Considering there is pretty clearly no Tony Blair in this version of reality, there is no reason to think there is a President Bush, either. Winters could easily have been elected in 2004, and re-elected in 2008. This would entitle him to say President-Elect in late 2008, even though he's already President. It would still be weird, though. It's easier to just say that the character mispoke than to say that Air Force One protocols, the news reports, the Master and the Fact File were all wrong about him being President. He could also be "elected" to some pending UN designation for first contact purposes, but that would be stretching. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just noting that Tony Blair exists, being referenced in Rise of the Cybermen and presumably killed in Aliens of London (they had intended to make it more explicit there). --77.99.30.226 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? Wow. Poor fictional Tony! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fandom
Could fandom be added to this episode page, and to next week's after broadcast, or is it against a specific policy?--Rambutan (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that cause the same kind of disagreement as when you added a similar tag to Blink? I imagine most of the arguments against that one apply the same here. No issue with it myself, though I can't see it doing much good. --77.99.30.226 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say, it's awfully consensus-unfriendly to ignore all that talk on your little discussion and slap together a template doing what you've been told is uncivil. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The edits seem to have calmed down quite quickly this time and bits and bobs are being discussed on here first. I had to dash out after Confidential so I might have missed a repeat of last week's offerings of very poorly written, grammatically incorrect and badly spelt edits. Even if I did the article had pretty much settled by midnight when I first got to check it. Is there really a need for such a tag on an article that has become relatively stable now? AlanD 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Templates that discouage editing aren't needed period. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was fairly stable at least as early as the Confidential finishing anyway, as far as I saw. I don't think it would even need it now. --77.99.30.226 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

They are needed if they discourage CRAP editing.--Rambutan (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone who can't take thirty seconds to format their input or put proper grammar to it is gonna be dissuaded by that. They probably wouldn't even read it. --77.99.30.226 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They are never needed and please calm down Rambut. If editing Doctor Who episodes on Wikipedia winds you up so much why do you do it? There are loads of people on here who would and do pick up the "crap" too. If a concensus of them feel such a tag is needed then so be it but they don't. This is not needed and it is unfriendly. Walk away if it is annoying you that much, you aren't the only Wikipedian. Come back later and do some polishing etc. AlanD 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Winters and UNIT
Did Winters actually say the UN rules stated that UNIT and the US president should handle first contact? I seem to remember that he DID say all first contact should be via UNIT and not on any soverign soil, I don't remember him saying that it was the US President who had to handle it. I thought he justified taking over based on the fact that the UK had elected "an idiot" (or some similar insult) whilst also insinuating it was because Saxon had made such a hash of it and had ignored the rules.AlanD 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Edited, you're correct. --77.99.30.226 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, it was "ass" not "idiot". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.142.228 (talk • contribs).
 * Winters stated that he's acting as a representative of the UN Security Council's decision to assert authority on the matter.IanThal 19:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dalek
When the doctor is telling the master about the time war he says that all the dalek were destroyed (-ish) referring to Dalek Cann —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.226.252 (talk • contribs).

Good point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.142.228 (talk • contribs).

Deadly trap
The Radio Times said that the wheels of a deadly trap were set in motion by Mr Saxon in "The Lazarus Experiment" and the trap would close in "The Sound of Drums". What was the deadly trap? Was it sprung? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.142.228 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm guessing this refers to the "Jones plan"AlanD 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Master/Harold Saxon was not only manipulating Francine Jones but also deloping the Lazarus technology in order to artificially age the Doctor. Both were elements of the trap-- or perhaps they were two traps.IanThal 22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Methinks part of the same trap as Saxon also got Martha's sister to work there. AlanD 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This thread is against WP:FORUM, and unless it is converted to a constructive, article-related discussion by the next editor, it will be deleted as per WP:TALK and WP:VPP.--Rambutan (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Seems quite petty to be honest. The original question could be seen as a fan seeking info (not what the forum is for) but it could also be seen as an editor seeking clarification of a plot point with an eye to future edits. The original question refered to quotations from the Radio Times and it appeared to me to be seeking information on where this would fit into the article. The episode itself mentions the Master's schemes. The discussion was probably over. AlanD 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rift
Was the thing that the Master looked into a kind of Rift like the one in Cardiff 'cause the description fits it.(193.109.50.42 18:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Looked more like the Time Vortex to me but it could be related. AlanD 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, it can't go in the article until we know for certain, nor can we speculate. --77.99.30.226 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that the Doctor said that it was the "whole of the Time Vortex" they stared into.AlanD 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I was thinking of that final 'rift' in the episode when I replied. Yeah, they looked into the Vortex. I think the OP's point was that as a the "Schism" is a "gap in the fabric of reality", it does kind of sound like the Rift. --77.99.30.226 11:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh I see. I thought the OP meant the time Vortex due to the "looking into" rather than "opened". Yes it does seem similar to the Rift (which opens up many other possibilities) but no sources as yet. Maybe next week. Worth remembering. AlanD 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Time Lords
A lot of people are saying this is the first time one appears onscreen, but I always thought there was one in the crowd in The Deadly Assassin (also noted in Gary Gillat's 1998 book Doctor Who - From A to Z in the chapter where he discusses the show's generally white casting). Has anyone got Assassin to hand (my tape is miles away) to verify this? 18:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of Gillat's claim but I'm afraid I've yet to spot the fellow in question. Mark H Wilkinson 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To verify this, a citation from Gillat is better than one of us eyeballing a DVD of The Deadly Assassin and saying they can see a black timelord. Looking at the cast list I don't see any obvious candidates for black timelords, but I'm not familiar with all of the actors in question. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If he's in the background then's he probably not on the cast list. My copy of A to Z is unfortunately elsewhere (with my Assassin tape). Timrollpickering 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The flip-side of that Tony is what if someone has a look at the episode and can't see a black TimeLord there? I know that is OR but it would bring into question the Gillat source. What does the BBC say on this? Any comments? It would be a typical RTD thing to have noticed that there has been no black Time Lords before and to have addressed it in this way but to say so would be OR again.


 * Thinking about it though viewing an episode of something is not included in OR (provided you stick to things said and shown only) otherwise there would be no articles on any show or film... mmmm... If there is one then the Gilliat article is worth mentioning, if not then... ug? What then? AlanD 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume it'd be written as "In his 1998 book Doctor Who - From A to Z, Gary Gillat wrote that a black Time Lord was seen in the Panopticon crowd scenes", or words to that effect. Mark H Wilkinson 00:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that viewing on DVD is acceptable. But citing a reference is a lot better.  It would have to have been an extra, I think. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can attest that none of the actors who play featured parts are black. Though there is the rarity of a Gallifreyan sans British accent in the form of George Pravda.  Mark H Wilkinson 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as well as Pravda there were a few actors who used to turn up and add a bit of "color" in British drama productions. Vladek Sheybal, Bert Kwouk, André Maranne, (think Gourmet Night), Saeed Jaffrey, David Kossoff, Miriam Karlin, Alfie Bass and so on.  All foreign, or able to look foreign, or convincingly alien, none black.  They've probably all done Who at one time or another.  By the seventies there was no shortage of black actors who could have done Who as front roles, including Don Warrington who had a big role in Rising Damp, and finally shows up in Rise of the Cybermen as President of Great Britain, so the demographic mix of middle period Doctor Who is as worthy of comment as that of middle-period Coronation Street.  I lived in Manchester in the seventies and the contrast between fictional Wetherfield and real life Salford was quite striking.  I'm not surprised that one had to fish around amid the extras to find a black actor. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Loss of some discussion from this page
On this page and on a talk page linked to an article about an adjacent episode, there have been some rather hamfisted attempts by an editor to enforce his interpretation of WP:FORUM. There has also been an intervention by at least one relatively inexperienced admin. Please do not edit war with these people, they will be dealt with if they continue to disrupt discussion. Do feel free to continue necessary discussion. This is what this page is for. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ohhh missed that... who did what? Sorry. Inappropriate. PM me, lol. To follow on from what Tony said no one has ownership over pages and we should all be here for the same thing - to produce the best article possible. Take on board the reasons for any reverts to your edits and, if after researching the WP policy in question, you disagree discuss it here and make the edit again. DO NOT, however, just get mad and revert the edits over and over. On the other side of the argument if someone consistently makes poor edits (spelling, quality and reliability) then inform them on their talk page politely. Detail the appropriate way to go about things (there are templates for this available) and if this is ignored then use warnings. It could be that the editor needs some guidance or a mentor. Such schemes are available. If they ignore all of this then the time has come for reporting them as a vandal. Stick to the policies. It is frustrating to see repeated poor edits but if all the editor has ever seen is a bunch of reverts and terse messages then they will simply think that the reverting editors have it in for them.


 * In short - Be bold and edit but take care to stay within WP policy. If you are reverted then look into (and discuss on here) why you were reverted and take on board people's comments before acting again. BUT if you think someone is... and lets be blunt here... a crap editor then don't get mad, don't war with them assume good faith and try to guide. Also, if you've done that don't fight alone (you become a problem then) follow the proper steps and, if required, report it upwards to admin. AlanD 23:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

May I just point out that I was blocked for removing comments, and then unblocked within the hour when I showed that I was acting under the auspices of WP:NOT, WP:TALK and a discussion at WP:VPP. Inappropriate discussions are subject to removal if there is a clear edit summary and it's not done using an automated tool, according to the admin who unblocked me.--Rambutan (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which might be the case but Tony did not mention your name and you have admitted that you were blocked. AlanD 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, then I was unblocked since the block was in violation of policy.--Rambutan (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote Saxon site
Seems to me the Vote Saxon site should be mentioned in the Production and publicity section as a BBC marketing ploy for this story. Has it been and gone, or do nobody put it in? I was just looking at the site, and it's changed substantially since the episode aired. It now features some of the same images seen in Matha's flat. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It does have the BBC disclaimer. I hadn't seen it before. Not sure if it is a genuine BBC disclaimer but the quality of the site suggests accuracy (that said it is much better than the VOTESAXON site linked to on the fact file for the episode. I think it merits inclusion but I would like to hear more comments for and against as I've only just come accross it. AlanD 23:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's definitely legit, being linked from the BBC site. --77.99.30.226 23:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't see it on there before, just the black one with the very basic stuff on. If it is there then no problem. I PERSONALLY think it deserves a mention. What do others think (or has it gone on already). Ahhh hold on, just visited it via BBC it IS the crappy black paged one updated. I think it gets a mention on the article already but the change in it is perhaps worthy of a mention too AlanD 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, wait, I see that the fancy one is http://www.haroldsaxon.co.uk/, and the plain black one is http://www.votesaxon.co.uk/. Both have BBC disclaimers, and both are linked.  The black one is linked from the billboard in the flash page, the other from the regular episode page. The conceit of the nicer one is that it's post-election. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jon Pertwee's cloak
For some reason, the "fact" that John Simm's wearing a third Doctor cloak keeps being inserted as a nod to the Pertwee era. A quick check of the episode reveals it's an overcoat. People might want to be alert to its reinsertion. Mark H Wilkinson 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what he's actually wearing, that coat did remind me strongly of Pertwee's cloak. It'd be worth putting the info back in if a source can be found. MartinMcCann 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was also reminded of Pertwee's cloak, but I did realize what The Master was wearing was a coat. Not sure if the reference is deliberate or not. Tehr 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitchhikers Guide
A couple of people have noticed that the Perception filter is very similar to the Somebody Elses Problem feild but i also saw that the Window to the Space time continuum is very like the Total Perspecitive Vortex?

The Toklafeine have the same voices as the "mice" from the recent Hitchhikers Guide movie. (Two people's comments here) 81.155.212.11 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Teletubbies
Sorry, me again... much like my Winters comment I remember the Teletubbies scene differently (although I'm happy to shut up if I'm wrong). The way I remember it The Master is enjoying the Teletubbies (much as he did the Clangers) but I don't remember him believing that they were real. I seem to recall the scene highlighted another parallel between the Doctor and the Master namely their admiration for mankind's inventiveness and imagination. Anyone else read it this way? If so I'm not proposing that we highlight the parallels to the Doctor (although if sourced (eg In Confidential they did state that they wanted the Master to have the same sense of humour etc as the Doctor, not sure if the Doctor's admiration etc for mankind was mentioned too in this context) then maybe it could go in) but that we remove him believing that the Teletubbies were real. Thanks.AlanD 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what the 'ironically' bit is getting at. He talks about them as if they were real. --77.99.30.226 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't get that impression. I thought he was talking about the show and the characters rather than considering them to be genetic constructs or something. I didn't think his talking about them was any stronger than anyone commenting on the show as a reflection of mankind (does that make sense??). Personally I did not, at all get an impression that he considered them to be real nor that he talked about them in that way. If, however, that is what others thought then so be it. Was that everyone's impression? AlanD 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I get what you mean now, but the whole "Have you seen these things? Television in their stomachs: now that's evolution" sounds like he's joking under the conceit that they're real, to me. Of course, he does comment on how this reflects on the planet, too, in a positive way. I wouldn't suggest for a second he thought they really were real, though, if I'm not making my point clear; just that he's joking/reflecting from that perspective. --77.99.30.226 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Edited, though I'm not sure if your issue is that it seems as if the article is saying he DOES think they're real, or if it just emphasis the wrong bit of the scene (his joke vs. his admiration). --77.99.30.226 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh I get your point. I haven't seen the new edit but yes, my original issue was that I FELT that the article stressed the wrong thing and read as if he believed they were real. Thanks!AlanD 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgot to say I read the edit you put and that sits much better with me thanks. I just kept reading and rereading it and I just couldn't make it gel with what I'd seen. I see your point now but if it is ok with you I think your new edit is better. AlanD 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood
"Jack also confirms that Torchwood One contained the majority of Torchwood's active staff: there are only six of them left" Are we sure about this? What about Torchwood 2 (in Glasgow, mentioned in Ep 1 of TW?). I recall Jack's comments about "rebuilding" Torchwood, but nothing about them being all that was left.81.96.75.186 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He definitely says there are only six of them. I guess that's 5 Threes plus the weird guy elsewhere. --77.99.30.226 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I definately thought that Jack was working as part of a greater organisation whilst in the Torchwood series (and that the London office was still there (being rebuilt) along with other offices. Jack's comments to the Doctor made me think otherwise. I would assume he has been involved with them on numerous occasions in the past but took over following the battle of Canary Warf. However my impression from his comments was that his team was all there was. Perhaps this means as far as the Torchwood that the Doctor knows about is concerned. The other Torchwoods could do other things (research and development, prisons, archives etc etc.) and be run by folks known to Jack (who is the weird old-guy running the Scottish branch (Leighbridge-Stewart??) blah, blah its all speculation. What isn't speculation is what Jack said. Maybe "confirms" is too strong a term. Perhaps we should simply say he "states" that Torchwood etc etc.AlanD 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article size
I thought I'd pre-empt comments on this later down the line. The continuity, trivia and so on sections for this article have gotten huge. I do not think there is an issue with this and I think it is entirely justified given the amount of trivia, continutity and so on that was packed into this episode (I'm sure we all realised that these sections would be huge just a few minutes into the episode). I just wanted the first comment on this subject to be a postive one. Does everyone agree that whilst we may need to debate some of the things included (and maybe even add more) that in general terms this article is justified in its size due to the nature of the article?AlanD 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just thinking about this myself. I'm not personally against it, but Wiki policy generally is. If it's really an issue, many notes can be integrated with the plot anyway (given out-of-universe plot is not only allowed, but encouraged). --77.99.30.226 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It just seemed to grow and grow but at the same time as I watched the episode I knew it was going to be a big one, as they packed so much in. I think the justification is there for all the content but as you say it might be that once the article has matured a bit and we've come to a concensus on the content that the more Gnomish (no insult intended) amongst us can work on polishing the style. AlanD 23:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Might it be an idea to give an overall summary of some additions to the canon while linking to, say, Gallifrey and the Master? For example, as a Continuity note:


 * "The episode expands considerably on the Master's history, including his childhood, relation to the Doctor and his involvement in the Time War. See the Master for further details."


 * The summary could be a little more thorough, of course, but as it stands right now, many Continuity notes only seem relevant to the episode by virtue of being mentioned in it, and would be more at home in their respective articles (where they can also be better integrated) rather than here. --77.99.30.226 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Added info about 'the darkness'
While this may be a small point to add, I think it merits mention as it was a fairly large plot point for Torchwood, and the same words were used 'the darkness is coming'. I may have put it in the wrong section too, but I don't believe it fall into the 'continuity' of Torchwood.

Feel free to comment etc on this.

Turbanator (not signed in)


 * In order to justify its inclusion, we need to be able to verify it's a reference to that Torchwood arc. Do we have such a citation?  Mark H Wilkinson 11:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is in another as well when captian jack talks about death, they may be refering to abadon, who is relesed when it is opened, or the creature that diead in the balck hole episode that may be in the darkness. the both also refer to somthing bneing in the darkness a more important point, this may just be a reference to a future ark though.

also another posability is that the Rift is a portal to the darkness and this may be what the master say when he looked into the wortex and he made a deal with the thing 172.203.95.117 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed this again. Let's just wait and see- the idea of something lurking in the darkness isn't a particularly unique idea, so the connection is fairly tenuous right now. If they're connected in the final episode (somehow), then add it back. --77.99.30.226 22:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote of the Master - Logopolis comparison
Looking at the [|BBC fact file] this makes reference to the Logopolis episode parallel mentioned in this article. To quote

"'Peoples of the Earth, please attend carefully' is a very similar to a famous line spoken by the Master in Logopolis: 'People of the Universe, please attend carefully.'"

Any idea which epsiode we are trying to quote on the wiki-page? As written I suspect Logopolis in which case (providing fact file is accurate) "Earth" should be replaced by "Universe". Anyone interpret the statement another way? Asperal 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I gather, it's "peoples of the Earth" and "people of the Universe". Somewhere along the line someone has 'corrected' the Earth quote to people. The original was actually quoting this episode, but Logopolis would probably make more sense. --77.99.30.226 14:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, it's both peoples anyway, just heard the Logopolis clip. --77.99.30.226 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown
"Let the work of change begin." Is this spine-chilling coincidence worth a note? MultipleTom 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Gordon Brown say that?
 * Unless an actual, sourced reference exists as to a connection, it's certainly outside the scope of the article. --77.99.30.226 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Worth keeping an eye on the news and news commentaries to see if anyone else draws a comparison. Even then I think we'll need a concensus but the right commentaries would be noteworthy in and of themselves. AlanD 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen people draw the connection already, but connections are easy to draw, and the article can end up full of them. The act of requiring sources to say "this was intentional" is, in part, a way of narrowing that down. For example, we've no mention of the Bush caricature/fun-poking aspects of Winters, for similar reasons. --77.99.30.226 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Winters isn't supposed to 'be' Bush. Winters is President-Elect, so Bush is still President. His lack of presence might have to do with Iraq... (written with tongue a least slightly embedded in cheek).
 * Never said he was, but he does mirror Bush in some respects, and that's what I was getting at. --77.99.30.226 22:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed elsewhere on this page, but most of the relevent dialogue indicates (to me) that the "President-Elect" line was RTD's misunderstanding of what the term actually means, not that Winters is actually President Elect--and that he likely just meant "the elected President", otherwise every other line of dialogue refering to him as president would have been mistaken,

Such a mistake is understandable: Americans might mistakenly refer to Elizabeth II as "The Queen Mother" thinking it a synonym for "Queen." Outside of Winters' invocation of God, there is very little similarity between Winters and Bush. Winters is articulate, speaks with a western accent, and clearly respects the UN Security Council and international law. If there was a Bush parody in the new series is would have been acting PM Joseph Green in "Aliens of London." IanThal 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said that Bush even exists in the Doctor Who Universe? &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Should be worth adding a note that four days after this programme was broadcast, Great Britain did indeed have a new Prime Minister who immediately had a crisis to deal with (obviously not on the same scale as this episode). Clearly luck on the timing from the BBC, but can also draw comparisons years ago with House of Cards (another BBC programme) and Margaret Thatchers departure.

An oddity perhaps not worth noting
Upon rewatching this episode, something caught my eye. The little news tickers at the bottom of the British and American news channels have very different takes on the President running first contact. AMNN also uses a question mark for "First contact" where News 24 uses an exclamation point. I doubt this needs inclusion, quick political jab if anything, but I figured I'd note it anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * News 24 — Harold Saxon invites President Winters
 * AMNN — Saxon forced into an embarrassing climbdown
 * It might be too trivial for the article, but it's hardly an oddity-- different journalists, different news services, and different nations' media will interpret events differently. In the case of the televised story, both tickers were correct.IanThal 12:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Captions
Why aren't we allowed to use captions anymore? We have done so without any trouble since season 1. 84.71.223.233 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDB
I notice this edit to this article, the grounds being IMDB is not a reliable source, there is nothing in the WP reference to back up this claim (that I can see). However, there is another article that has what I feel to be a spurious claim, and the only evidence used to to back it up is a reference from the IMDB, does anyone know if the claim made by this editor is valid, and if it is, why it is? The Fashion Icon 09:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User based content, sorry! The Fashion Icon 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't make claims unless they're valid - I've been around here a long time and know the precepts, rules, customs, traditional interpretations, common law precedents and ropes!--Rambutan (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the other article to which you refer? The trouble with IMDB is, as you say, its user-based additions — (in)famous content of the past includes putting John Barrowman in episodes in which he doesn't appear, and Kevin Eldon as Davros in The Parting of the Ways.  A pity, really, as it's a marvellous resource in many respects. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ray D'Arcy, is the article, it has been an ongoing thing, you may get more of a fell on the talk page, thanks for the comment The Fashion Icon 11:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning
There is no reason to specifically state IMDB - Golding wasn't credited in the episode, and it needs a reliable source. Saying "not IMDB" implies that DigitalSpy, the Sun, the Daily Mail and Freemaagyeman.com are all acceptable. Plus, it keeps getting added with a low level of warnings, so let's steep them up. Finally, don't revert without an explanation.--Rambutan (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason to specifically state IMDB is that many users, new and old, believe it's a reliable source, and therefore there is more danger of it being added than other sources. There is no reason to change the wording, and there is no reason to repeat the warning unnecessarily as you have done. That's why I reverted your edit. ugen64 06:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but there's no reason to imply that the Sun is an acceptable source. Saying "reliable" blankets this, as per WP:RS. And there clearly is a need to overstate the warning, because it keeps being ignored by vandals. Please do not just revert, await consensus. I'm going back to the pre-dispute version so consensus can be got; if you want ANI then go ahead.--Rambutan (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need to expressly state that The Sun is not a reliable source because anyone with common sense knows it's not a reliable source. Looking through the history, any recent vandalism involving adding this specific statement has only been done using IMDB as a source, so there is really no reason to confuse people with the new wording, which is less explicit and more confusing to me. In addition there is really no reason to spam the warning. And finally, I doubt that those "vandals" you mention will pay attention to these warnings at all, overstated or not. ugen64 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of it's been done without a source at all. And finally, then they'll get blocked!--Rambutan (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OR
"Is a major factor" - I can't see a source for that--Rambutan (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then add one.  Majorly  (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Second and Fourth Doctor's"
Under "References to other stories", first line. It should read: "...the confection is associated with the Second and Fourth Doctors" NOT "...the confection is associated with the Second and Fourth Doctor's". 210.154.124.5 07:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I reverted back to your edits, and I understand that it may have been reverted if the editor did not see the grammar, But to remove your talk from the discussion page is not correct either. Triwbe 07:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was the possessive rather than the plural, and so replaced the apostrophe. Sorry. But cocking up formatting and not signing comments and sounding hostile isn't very nice, you know.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "cocking up formatting": I'm new to this, educate me. As for not signing, as I said, I'm new to this and forgot. Oh, and there was no hostility intended, just frustration at being accused of vandalism.210.154.124.5 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Politics...
Pertaining to this edit: the Harold Saxon website does not say or suggest that Saxon was a member of no political party. What it says is that all the parties agreed on him. If the Lib Dems and the Tories - for example - agreed to support one of Gordon Brown's bills, one could write that same sentence, but to say that Gordon is a member of no political party would, of course, be nonsense. To say that Saxon was non-affiliated is original research.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from not just basing the edit on the Saxon website but watching the programme there is in fact this statement in the Biography section  He has transformed the nature of British politics by daring to stand apart from the party system..As for your suggestion in one of the edit summaries that one has to be a party member to be Defence Minister that is not true you merely have to be a member of the House of Commons or Lords .Garda40 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but you have to be nominated by the PM to be a minister, and in the whole of history, no PM has ever nominated an independent MP - in fact, to my knowledge, there have only ever been two independent MPs at all, so I assumed that we'd use common sense here. Although something is technically possible, it's not really within the bounds of reality, and speculating on the subject is original research, since there is this ambiguity.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got no opinion; I'm just noting the irony about an independent PM being "outside the bounds of reality" when it's in a show with a near-immortal time-traveller in the lead role :P (And remember, he did do the hypnotising on a nationwide scale) Will (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought there's a line of dialogue in SoD about candidates defecting to Saxon's party. That sounds to me like he belonged to some political party, though not necessarily any of the ones currently active in the real UK. 23skidoo (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "As soon as you saw the votes swinging my way, you all abandoned your parties and jumped on the Saxon bandwagon". No indication either way. Will (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

paradox machine
does anyone tjink it is possible that the doctor was planning to use the tardis as a paradox machine in Father's Day (Doctor Who) when he say that he can fix everything when he has his ship back.


 * No. Please do not use these talk pages ofr fan questions. There are plenty of other DW forums on the web for this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect
There's only 2 months every 4 years (tops) where someone is ever called President-Elect of the United States of America. No doubt this isn't common knowledge in England, but it's a fact. This is documented in the referenced pages, and isn't speculative in any way.

If however, you don't think this is a fact, then let's hear it.

Mael-Num (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who is clearly set in a different universe to us. In that universe, there were three Xmas Day alien invasions. I didn't notice them in real life; if that difference exists, it is reasonable to think that other differences also exist. For example, I could enter into the article, "A mistake in the episode is that time-travel is actually impossible." This is actually no different to what you wrote; it is assuming that all the laws, facts and characteristics of our universe applies to the Whoniverse; but they clearly don't!
 * I would adivse you to thoroughly read our policy on original research, since you seem to have a difficulty understanding that your own new thoughts aren't allowed here! Thanks ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How amusing that you condescend to me regarding original research, and defend your position with a good chunk of it of your own. Very well, if it is so "clear" then why this person's comment?  Or better still, why use the term "President-Elect" at all?  Or "United States"?  Can we also not conclude that residents in the "Whoniverse" don't eat their own parents upon the occasion of their 30th birthday?  I mean, we've never seen that this doesn't happen, and it is a parallel universe, so these people aren't us.

Your position is laughably contrarian. I'd recommend you unclench. Mael-Num (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend strongly that you read our policies on civility and consensus. Now, the definition of "original research", which is banned, is unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas. Since your fact/idea/argument/speculation is unpublished (I assume) it falls into that category.
 * And no, I won't revert my revert, I'm not required to until I breach the three-revert rule and don't intend to do so voluntarily. Let's let others comment on the discussion here first. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for pointing out policies. Might I also point out that finger pointing and whining about civility goes against the policy of not pointing fingers and whining.
 * You also seem to not have very carefully read 3RR. Here's an interesting bit:
 * Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.
 * All that bureaucracy aside, let's get to the actual matter at hand. Are you claiming that in the Doctor Who continuity, it's not safe to assume that the political bodies being represented in their fictional version of early 21st century earth follow the same procedural processes that ours do?  That seemed to be a fairly major point above, with the Tony Blair bit, and the consensus seemed to be arguing that they do.  Do you disagree?  Mael-Num (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When you apply real world rules to a fictional universe you are making big mistake and engaging in WP:OR. In the first place even if the November to January timing was being adhered to in the storytelling it is never stated onscreen. Since this is an encyclopedia we deal only with the facts as presented and not with speculation about what might be meant. Please note that there are plenty of fan forums and blogs on the net where you can make this point. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is stated that he is President-elect. The character introduces himself as such during the press conference.  I'm pretty sure that makes it canon.  Why use the term at all?  Can you state when else someone might be President-elect and the date on the calendar not being as described?  There seem to be some extraordinary claims happening on the part of other editors regarding this matter.  I'd like to see some evidence to back up these claims.  Mael-Num (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is exactly the point. There is no evidence to back up any claims, yours or ours. This is a fictional universe. I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand. The elections could be in July, or the month of Troon for that matter. One other thing to note. If the real world rules were being applied to this episode Nov-Jan is winter in the UK and there is sunlight for only seven or so hours a day. The weather tends to be cold and rainy. We see none of this in the episode. Again an encyclopedia can only deal with the evidence that is clearly stated onscreen. Your speculation will not be put into the article. Three separate editors have found it to be inappropriate so the only disruptive behaviour, so far, has been yours. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're gaming at this point. We know he is the President-elect of the United States.  This is stated.  There's only one time that there is a President-elect of the United States.  We must assume that the process is the same because it isn't shown to be different.  If your claim is that it is different, then you must demonstrate this, as it is an extraordinary claim.
 * Please note also that I'm not speaking in terms of what weather "tends to be" or how many hours of sunlight exist in a day (in a 40 minute story, no less). The fact is that there's a very brief period of time when a President-elect for the US even exists.  This fact is already referenced in the article, and has been an established consensus edit for some time now.  I'm merely fleshing out that comment.
 * This is pretty standard stuff, guys. I'm a little shocked that I even have to argue this; it's like rebutting someone's claim that the sky isn't blue. Mael-Num (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the link to the article defining the details of what the title President-elect means is sufficient to explain this. If someone lacks understanding of what that means, including the time period in which it would apply, they can click on that link. The only thing that would require explanation here is for deleting the reference to his stated title of "President-elect" - to claim that because the scrolling credits say otherwise, when the character states his title within the dialogue, would require some extraordinary speculation as to why Winters would either lie about his title, or that some alternate-universe form of government exists in which President-elect and President are one in the same. Otherwise, let's stick to the facts as presented (that the Winters character is "President-elect") and avoid unncessary detail (such as an explanation of the position) and speculation (such as Whoniverse government theories). --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you're saying that he is President-elect, and that the term is valid, and the article as-written has referenced the real-world facts of what exactly the President-elect of the United States is, then what's the problem with including the dates? The show's all about time travel, wouldn't it be germane to include that information if it was in the story?  Why would the writers include that detail if not to clue us into the date?  Hasn't anyone considered that...that the writers are telling us when this is taking place without having one of the characters pick up a newspaper and read it off?  Mael-Num (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch on selected/elected as well,Shubopshadangalang. I should have noticed that myself...well done. Mael-Num (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on this one, honestly, as far as including the details. It helps to understand a small amount of context of the story. But I can also see the argument that this is a minor detail, and that it could be "unnecessary information" at the worst. But if it really does serve a purpose as to place the timeline of the story, maybe it's worth noting, as long as it doesn't lean torward speculation. There's no reason to expect that a drastic change in U.S. electoral processes have taken place here, so a statement from real-world examples should be perfectly valid. Your "30th Birthday" example is extreme, but makes the point - there's no reason to question every detail - we must assume things are most likely as they are in the real world (especially when real-word terminology such as "President-elect" is utilized without an alternate explanation) unless explained otherwise within story canon. That being said, I really don't think the time of year has any relevance, unless it makes a difference to Martha's year-long journey somehow or some other story detail. Details like this in article should be reasonably verifiable, but also should be worth noting to begin with. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly, whenever there are significant differences between our world and theirs (or any version of earth), the writers make that clear (Hey look...airships!). The fact that they are using a term that has a real-world meaning is significant.  I could see some debate as to the year.  I went with 2008 because they reference events that are known to have happened in 2007 (a couple of alien invasions) and it was the next election year, but the writers (and the Doctor) seem to like 2012 as well.  I went with the earlier date because I'm assuming, with the series ongoing (and its spin-offs), there will likely be invasions between 2008 and 2012 that would have been mentioned, but were not, therefore it's most likely not much farther along than '08.  Mael-Num (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One more thing I just realized is that the time of year may be relevant to the larger story arc of that season, or an over all plan for the series. For example, this helps place the relative time of these events in relation to the events of Voyage of the Damned, which would be at Christmas, possibly following very closely to the post-US-election events of late fall or early winter of 2008, 2012 or 2014. Also, it may not necessarily indicate a political change for the President-elect to be representing the country - it's very possible that he is currently serving in another official capacity, such as Vice President, Ambassador, etc, and as he is acting post-election, uses the President-elect title, accurately, but for added impact for his actions. Obviously none of such speculation should be in the article, but I'm trying to show further support for why these details should be included for reference, as they may help place the story context. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mael, for someone who warned about assuming good faith, you firstly suggested that making a single revert is disruptive (it is *NOT*), and then said "You are gaming now." Please accept that unless you have a source to back up your unpublished argument that the story takes place in November or whatever, then it can't be added. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For someone who warned yadda yadda blah blah...what? Was there a point to that?  Gee, I hope I'm not distracting you.
 * I also hope that you're not showing signs of Encyclopaedic Megalomania. I've seen it before, and it's not pretty when full-blown. Mael-Num (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take this matter to ANI, since you're not interested in constructive discussion. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only source needed here would be to one covering the U.S. election process, although that's clearly an issue of common knowledge. Just as a way of satisfying this though, here's a link for you: --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)No, all that sources is that in the real-world United States political system, the president-elect is that official. I don't see the US Department of State confirming that Doctor Who is an accurate representation of US politics, or that it is set in the real-world. If it was intended to be 100% true to life, then it would involve real politicians and real characters. The Master doesn't exist (if I remember rightly), there is no Senator or Governor called Arthur Winters... therefore, any world containing such characters is clearly not ours, and thus doesn't necessarily have the same politics. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pure speculation on your part. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Something depicting reality, like the news, depicts real-life figures. You wouldn't find Rose Tyler on a news-bulletin. Therefore anything depicting something unreal, isn't depicting something real-life. And if it's not real-life, there's no reason to treat it like real life. Take this example: I write in the article, "An error was made in the script, as time-travel isn't actually possible." That's true; I could find reliable sources for it.
 * But it would be nonsense; we know that Doctor Who is fiction. And since it's fiction, and has that element of unreality, it's safe to assume that it has others. Like Martha Jones' existence, like the Daleks' existence, and we don't know what else. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fiction that goes out of its way to model itself on our world. That's why they use terms like "Prime Minister" and "President".  If The Doctor had ended up in a version of England where the Prime Minister gets the job by yanking a sword out of a stone, then fine, you've got an argument that we shouldn't apply our rules of electoral procedure to the fictionalized world that we are looking at.  But, as it is, we've been told that this is "our world" or Margaret and Rose's world, which is for all intents and purposes, our world, minus some alien invasions and such.
 * Now, TT, it's your turn. Where's the "sword in the stone" that serves as your evidence that this President-elect isn't meant to be the same as ours? Mael-Num (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't assume that because it's a fictional universe, that for some unstated reason the U.S. governmental system is different. To do that is speculation. To take information at face value as it's presented within the context of the story, such as the known definition of "President-elect", would be the reasonable, non-speculative approach. As Mael pointed out, differences in the universes are pointed out explicitly (airships example) within the story. If someone's drinking a glass of milk (in a Doctor Who episode), we can't expect an explanation of whether milk has the same properties in this fictional universe as it does in ours, and you certainly can't assume that it is likely toxic, and that you should have a suspenseful worry at the situation and fear the safety of the character because it hasn't been explicitly defined for us that milk is drinkable. When they say "milk" you just assume they mean "milk" unless they say otherwise. I'm not sure what else I can say.... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get this, do you? The onus is on YOU to source information YOU add. Since the information is an unpublished argument, the definition of original research, and your (anyway flawed) common sense, even if it was perfect, is not acceptable; the case is as good as made. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not (the case having been made, that is). A reference was provided that defines the election process. You're the one speculating that the U.S. Government operates differently in the Who universe. Provide a source for that. Otherwise, real-world examples (especially in a section titled "Outside Sources") are perfectly relevant. The burden here is on you, Treasury. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it.
 * Also, I want to point out that WP:NOCOMMON is an essay, not a policy. Anyone can write one.  For the record, there actually is a such thing as common sense, despite what you may have read...and regardless of the presence or absence of it in any given individual. ;) Mael-Num (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, unless you can provide a reliable source with which we can verify your claim, it stays out of the article. Simple as that. Lets forget all the other doctor who stuff that's been used in the argument and just focus on this &mdash; come back with a reliable source, or don't come back at all.-- Phoenix -  wiki  21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A reliable source for what? That elections take place in early November and inauguration takes place in late January? Done. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To throw in some more outside perspective, I think this is fairly simple. Since the specific date of the episode (and you're not that specific, you're guessing within a three month period) is never established, you have no proof if it is 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or even 2012 (another election year, and a year specifically visited by the Doctor before).  If you can't even establish a year let alone the month, then the date has absolutely no bearing on the article or the story, and has no use on Wikipedia.  You can think that it's November 2008 or January 2013, but you have no proof either way, so it fails notability on Wikipedia simply because you're taking a guess.  An educated guess maybe, but a guess none the less.  Either find a source specifying the date, or remove the guess.  It's that simple.


 * Assuming the Whoniverse follows the same laws, dates, and other such bits is also just a guess, as a fictional story can only take what is established in the story as "facts". For a show aging from the 1960s, real world facts have little merit as the timeline has been changed quite a lot over the decades. The359 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuity errors over the course of the series are an entirely separate issue. We can only look at the current series at face value. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Point is the Whoniverse has long seperated itself from the Real World. The very fact that a President-Elect has any powers just goes to show that you cannot apply Real World laws to a Fictional Universe television show, simply because the show's producers can choose on a whim to ignore any Real World element they wish. The359 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And there's a big difference between using reason and "taking a guess". This may sound a little presumptuous but: most of science...also guesswork to you? Mael-Num (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an Encyclopedia, not a Science Experiment. Whatever you want to call it, it's original research.  It's not even useful to the article.  The359 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I take it you're going to ignore my question and continue to shake your fist at the people who are making sense? Mael-Num (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered your question. The scientific method is far removed from your guessing based on applying a real world term to a fictional universe.  You have no deducted a "fact", you've simply made a guess on your view of a fictional universe.
 * Also, I would suggest not having the attitude that your ability to guess is better than established, referenced facts on Wikipedia. I don't care how good you are at guessing, you have no reference, so you have no fact, so your information does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines. The359 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I do all that? Mael-Num (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary, yes, you have implied that.
 * I'm afraid you must be mistaken. I did no such thing, though you seem to have inferred otherwise. Mael-Num (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, it's original research, if unsourced, to suggest that the Who universe by and large ignores realities of the real world even when not explicitly stated. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, we're interested in verifiable statements, not facts. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If all reliable references said the world was flat, our article would say that. Jimbo seems to agree.-- Phoenix -  wiki  21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, we're interested in facts, not facts? That's very good, and I am sure "Jombo" would certainly agree with that.  Mael-Num (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's verifiable that the Winters character claims to be President-elect. It's verifiable that this title carries with it certain other details such as the election/inauguration timeline. Anything else regarding the state of U.S. politics in the Who universe - whether one supposes it to be true, fact, or otherwise - if unsourced is purely speculation. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * listen, you can't add that because you don't have a reference. There's nothing else to say. Just move on and do some other edits.-- Phoenix -  wiki  22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can, do, and did. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My reference is the article on President-elect of the United States. Perhaps you should just move on and take the matter up with those people? Mael-Num (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Un-Indent)All fun-poking aside, here's the matter at hand. It's a fact that the President-elect of the United States is a specific title that refers to a certain person under certain circumstances. Part of those conditions is that it happens during an election year (2008, 2012, 2016 in case you're counting or for some reason think there are Presidential elections in "2009, 2010, 2011"), after the election is held, and before the inauguration happens.

This isn't up for debate; the article that a consensus edit already cites as relevant to the term states this clearly. No one was arguing that the real-world term didn't apply before, when the "The Sound of Drums" article linked directly to the real-world definition of "President-elect of the United States". So why is the argument valid now?

I was making that information more readily available because it gives us a clue as to the date, which is handy to know in a series all about time travel. Also, and let's face it...some people across the pond have no friggin idea what a President-elect is. If this debate isn't proof that this information should be included because at least some Doctor Who fans could learn from it, I don't know what is. Mael-Num (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The part about the time of year is clearly referenced already. But, on the issue of the year, unless you can cross-reference that with other information, I don't think we can include something like "it's either 2008, 2012, 2016" in the article, because, although we can come close to an answer, the fact that it's uncertain means that it's technically speculation. But I'm sure it must be possible to determine what year it's actually set in, like I said, by cross-referencing... I suggest holding off until you can provide references for that info, whether external, or from the program content. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus has absolutly no effect on what is included in articles, if it doesn't have a reference it will be removed, even if 500 people say they want it in and only 1 says they don't. Now please don't reply untill you find a reference.-- Phoenix -  wiki  22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The episode does not give an accurate description of the President-elect in the first place. To attempt to "educate" people on something which the show changes anyway, is moot.  If you want people to understand "President-elect", use a wikilink.  Anything else has no place on this article. The359 (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's speculation that it's something the show "changes". This section is called "Outside Sources" and it is tied in to relevance with the show because it places its context using verifiable references. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an assumption to know that the real world President-elect has no authority. And the section is "Outside references", as in references to real world events and such.  It references the existance of the President-elect, but it does not in any way reference the actual laws regarding President elects or the inauguration process. The359 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to further explain, the section is "Outside references". It refers to things within the show that reference real world events and such.  It is NOT for real world events to be used to attempt to "guess" elements of the show.  You have the section backwards. The359 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument, at best, suggests that the information be moved to a different section in the article, not removed entirely. The information about his title was in this section before, but I'm open to the date reference being moved to another section. By the way, it's not a "guess," it's based entirely on verifiable information... no one's saying that "it's probably November." A "guess" would be something like "they probably don't have the same U.S. Government structure in the Who universe". :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The U.S. Government structure is the same in the Who universe" is equally a guess. Hence neither belong on Wikipedia. The359 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect: section-break
Again, no one argued that the "President-elect" wasn't the President-elect when it was linked to, so that's not really up for debate. What little has been offered to debate this has no evidence in support of it, therefore, the November to January dating is applicable. The only references that need be given are to wikipedia articles; the process is well-documented and detailed.

We know from Margaret's words that she wasn't gone very long, less than a year in fact, as she was aware of Saxon's candidacy for PM, and he only won the election recently in the storyline. Margaret was picked up immediately following Christmas 2007. When The Doctor visits 2012's Olympic games with Margaret, she described it as her future. When they are fuelling up in Cardiff, it's known to be her present. She mentions the incident with the Slitheen as being "a couple of years ago".

We see Jack running up to the TARDIS in "Utopia" immediately following the events of End of Days. Did that episode mention a date?

Finally, we know that The Master could only go between Cardiff circa 2008 and someplace near "Utopia" at the time of the heat death of the universe. How many facts from the show do I need to slap people in the face with before it's considered a valid plot element? Mael-Num (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is arguing against its relevance, just its verifiability. I think you're very close to an answer... just make sure you back it up fully when you have it. I'm done for today. For one thing, I've wasted too much time on this already, but also, I think I've technically reached my 3 revert limit on this info (in one form or another). So, just as well I duck out for now... Good luck. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And as already established, the Whoniverse has continuity problems. Without a reference, the statement does not belong on Wikipedia, and will continue to be removed as WP:OR. The359 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How are the events that happened inside the episode considered original research? Do you have citations for every plot summary of every episode of Doctor Who, or was it sufficient just to watch them and see?  Why do I need to jump through hoops when other, more regular contributors to Doctor Who articles aren't held to that standard?  Mael-Num (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You actually mention no dates from this specific episode, only one from the previous episode. A statement made in the show can be taken as a fact, but your assumption that the United States Presidential process is taking place at the same time as in the real world is not in any wasy established by dialogue within the episode.  Therefore you need a reference in order to make such a speculative guess, even if you think it is logical.  You have two real choices of references here: Dialogue within the episode specifying a date, or dialogue from a producer/writer/someone involved in the show impyling when they want the episode to be taking place.  Using real world United States election and inauguration laws has no bearing on a date within a fictional universe, and is not a valid source. The359 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "your assumption that the United States Presidential process is taking place at the same time as in the real world is not in any wasy established by dialogue within the episode"
 * And we've already established that it need not be. Read above.  Mael-Num (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's establishment has no bearing on the fact that you have no reference discussing this episode and its dating. The359 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is simple stuff. You have to have a reference that says "The Sound of Drums took place in this year" or something along those lines.  Using a reference with no mention of anything involving Doctor Who to make a speculative jump about a date within a fictional universe does not cut it. The359 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, again, you're holding me to a different standard than other editors? Mael-Num (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where was this standard when this rubbish:
 * The Master's final speech to the aged Doctor quotes phrases and words from the King James Version of the Bible (e.g. "thought it good" from 1 Thessalonians 3:1, Daniel 4:2, and the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; "it came to pass" from Luke 2:1, among others), and generally parodies it by using what in modern speech would be archaisms (e.g. "dominion", "fell" and "was no more").
 * Was added? Mael-Num (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not holding anyone to any special standard. We are discussing this one section.  I never said everything else on the article was perfect.  That section should include references as well.  Doomsday (Doctor Who) is an example of what an episode article should look like. The359 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And just to mention it again, please do not use smartass comments in your edit summaries. They are not civil and not helpful in this discussion. The359 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get right on it, just as soon as you apologize for "smartass".
 * On a more topical note, the Date of Death on Jack Harkness' ID Card next to him in "End of Days" says that he died 11/01(?)/06. The middle bit is a bit blurry, but the "06" is pretty plain.  I'll try to find something more conclusive, but there it is.  Arriving in 06 would definitely have given The Master enough time to muck around as Defense Minister, shoot down the Racnoss, build a satellite network, etc.  Mael-Num (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to like to argue, even when you're told you're being uncivil. I suggest you tone it down.


 * The date on a card in Torchwood does not establish anything, as there is no reference to how much time has elapsed between Jack's "death" and the events of The Sound of Drums. It would, once again, be pure speculation on your part.  I've already told you the reference necessary. The359 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As do you, and under the same circumstances. What was your point again?  Mael-Num (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is, sadly, the kind of fanc**p ego driven argument that allows TTN and Eusebius and their ilk to delete and redirect entire articles. So much typing has gone on here for what? So that one editor can say - oh isn't it cool that I know when a president gets elected in the US. In what way does it enhance anyones understanding of this "45 minute" episode (set over several days) to think that it might have taken place sometime between November and January. It is the most trivial fancruft possible. Please go and post it on the Doctor Who wikia where speculation is allowed then your ego will have left something for future readers to see. Oh, and one more thing the sky isn't blue on Gallifrey or during "The Poison Sky" on Earth. MarnetteD | Talk 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow...just...wow. Feeling better, are we?
 * I'm so very angry you've completely unmasked my motives in contributing to Wikipedia. It's all about getting my name recognized by Doctor Who fandom!  Now that that's been revealed, I'll need to find some other way to find my way into the hearts and minds of Whofandom.  Making sure people like yourself think highly of me is clearly foremost on my mind.  Mael-Num (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD is correct, as I have tried to say before. The date of the event adds nothing to the article.  It's useless information.  The359 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I disagree.  After I add the info back, you're welcome to not read it. Mael-Num (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Except you lack a reference and it is Original Research, so it will simply be removed again. I suggest you look towards compromise and following Wikipedia guidelines rather then fighting for the sake of a fight. The359 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Words have meanings. If the United Kingdom is mentioned in an episode, one assumes that it refers to the same governmental entity. You wouldn't question it, and wonder whether it also includes Iceland, Libya, and the western half of North Dakota. It's the same United Kingdom as what's in our universe. If an episode mentions a mirror, we assume a mirror has the same properties as it does in our universe. See my previous "milk" example as well. Likewise, when a word or phrase referring to a real-world governmental system is used - in this case "President-elect," in the absence of different explanations, one assumes it has the same definition in the fictional universe as it does in the real world. This is not speculation. If we need to provide "proof" that every passing reference to a real-world person, place, thing, event, idea, or concept is the same in the Who universe as it is in the real world, then we've got a LOT of "unsourced" tags to insert.... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what people assume, it matters what you can reference as being what the producers and writers of Doctor Who wanted. The359 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. It's clear that they wanted him to be "President-elect" when they wrote the line that says "I am the President-elect." By its very definition, this places the story within a certain time context. If this were intended to mean something different than what "President-elect" means, and thus, not mean a position that only exists between early November and late January in an election year, then THAT is where you would need to provide a reference. Otherwise, what the producers and writers of Doctor Who "wanted" is exactly at face value. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They clearly wanted the story to take place between November 08 and January 09. That's why they made the character the "President-elect".  There is never a President-elect except during those months, immediately following an election.  If they didn't, they wouldn't have chosen that very specific and reserved term.
 * You don't seem to understand that, so in the interests of WP:AGF, I'll assume that you're actually a moron, and not willfully ignorant, and will continue to explain that until even you can understand. Mael-Num (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on now. If we've been asking you to provide a reference this entire time, what makes you think we're going to go for "I know what the writers and producers had in mind".  Not going to fly.  You have no reference to back the claim that the writers specifically chose the term for any particular reason.
 * As for calling people morons: you've been warned twice, and you seem to just want to ignore civility until you get your way. Stop.  The359 (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncivil? Come on now, I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.  Are you saying I was wrong in that, and you're just willfully ignoring the references I've listed above?


 * Oh, and for the record, I'm still waiting on that apology. I'm also waiting on any evidence of your extraordinary claim that terms like "President" and "Prime Minister" mean completely different things in Doctor Who's continuity. Mael-Num (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's just uncalled for. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if anyone owes an apology here, it's for your "you're actually a moron" comment, which I assume was directed at The359. That's a lot worse than his reference to your "smartass comments". I'm on your side of this argument, but I can't support that kind of name-calling, especially when you're expecting apologies. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see what the problem is here; we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world: the UK refers to the same entity, and a mirror refers to the same entity. Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition. Your mistake is, however, with the definition. The definition of President-elect is, according to the Wikipedia article, "a political candidate who has been elected president but who has not yet taken office, as it is still occupied by the outgoing president."

So, if we're assuming that Mr Winters is that individual, and didn't just make a nervous slip in his speech, meaning to explain that he was elected (as an untrained politician making first contact with an alien race on-board an airborne ship, broadcast to the whole world, might well do!), then that's fine. But the definition includes nothing about November, December, months or dating. The dating is a separate part of the US political system, an intricate part, based on numerous laws and statutes (and I do know, I'm a student of politics, as it happens); and since we don't know either way that it's either identical in the Whoniverse or different, it's original research to speculate based on either assumption. Does that help to clear it up? ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 07:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're SO close to agreeing on this, I don't want to mess that up, but... as far as I can tell, it IS actually part of the definition of the title. Even the Wikipedia article you cite mentions the timeline of the election & inauguration cycle as part of explaining the President-elect title, which is in the detail of the article. Even the terms you quoted have a timeline associated with them: "a political candidate who has been elected president [a process which takes place on the first Tuesday in November] but who has not yet taken office, as it is still occupied by the outgoing president [a transition which takes place on January 20 of the year following the election]." The vary nature of such a briefly- and temporarily-held title is that it is inextricably tied to the timeline. The delay between election and inauguration has existed since 1789, with a shift to a January 20 inauguration in 1937, which has remained consistent since. Like a mirror's reflectiveness, milk's non-toxicity, or the UK not including North Dakota, this is a property that is tied to the definition of President-elect. To call into question whether the Who universe defines it the same is to open a huge bag of questions about every minute detail that relates to our world. I don't think any of us really expect that as editors we should have to search for a resource for how the Who universe defines each and every one of them. Do you? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the principle of the position isn't related to its dating, it's related to being between an election and the inauguration. As The359 says, if the US politics in the Whoniverse are so different that the P-e gets the important job of talking to aliens, rather than the incumbent, then it's reasonable to assume that such minor aspects as the dating of elections could also be changed too. Not "have" also been changed, but "could". And since we don't know either way, we can't add it. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 08:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very reasonable argument, but I feel compelled to point out that imagining that the government has changed because the President-elect doesn't typically represent the country internationally is a matter of speculation. For one thing, we have no real-world precedent for who gets to talk to aliens, and it could easily be speculated that if such a situation arose, the current president would likely be in an underground bunker in Utah, rather than exposed to a potential hostile invasion. One could also easily speculate that Winters is currently the Vice President under the previous administration and serving in an official capacity in that position, and since he was elected he could rightfully throw around "President-elect" as a way of sounding impressive (example: George H.W. Bush in late 1988 while Reagan was still president). BUT... all of that is speculation, and all we can deal with here are the face-value realities: that Winters is President-elect, and that "President-elect" has a known definition. And part of that definition is that the position is "between an election and the inauguration" as you say, and that places it in a time period between two time-specified events: election and inauguration. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

President-elect: section break II
I've got to say, I'm impressed that you're at least listening and talking this over. Thank you, and I'll try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum! ;) (Also, I cut-paste this in because youse guys wuz chit-chattin' while I was typing, so forgive me if I'm redundant here...I'm not retyping this)
 * "we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world: the UK refers to the same entity, and a mirror refers to the same entity. Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition."
 * Yes, I'm relieved that we agree on this much, at least.
 * "So, if we're assuming that Mr Winters is that individual, and didn't just make a nervous slip in his speech, meaning to explain that he was elected (as an untrained politician making first contact with an alien race on-board an airborne ship, broadcast to the whole world, might well do!)"
 * This is vastly more speculative than anything I'm proposing. For argument's sake, it seemed to me that he was relatively unflappable in his confrontations with The Master as Saxon, and showed enough political savvy to demand that the Presidential Seal be displayed in lieu of the UN's on relevant document.  Neither of these fit with a "nervous" or "untrained" politician (Indeed, how does one become President if one is "untrained" in politics?)  In any case, this is speculation, but you also said we can assume he's right about his own job title, so let's.
 * "But the definition includes nothing about November, December, months or dating. The dating is a separate part of the US political system, an intricate part, based on numerous laws and statutes (and I do know, I'm a student of politics, as it happens"
 * Ah yes, the Numerous Statute Law of 1787. All students of politics know it well.  It completely describes the role of Executives, and the entire President-elect process.  You are correct that, as defined in the NSL of 1787, there aren't proper dates, but the process is neither arcane nor ephemeral.  As one student to another, allow me to demystify its intricacies using the article President-elect:
 * In the United States, the members of the U.S. Electoral College are elected by the people in November once every four years; in December, they are in session and in turn elect the President of the United States; finally, the President of the United States assumes office in January. One is officially the president-elect only after being chosen by the Electoral College, but unofficially the person chosen in the November popular election is called the President-elect even before the Electoral College meets.
 * We know the guy's Pres-elect of the USA, so as you said above, we should apply the "the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world". As I said in my edit here, this story must happen between the Election (November) and the Inauguration (January).  Elections in the US are set, unlike the UK where general elections happen whenever they feel like having one.  A Presidential election happens every 4 years (and coincide with leap years, a handy way to remember).
 * It's gotta be 2008-2009, otherwise it's too far off for Margaret to know who was running for PM in England. Also, see the Harkness stuff I wrote above.  I'll try to get more on the year, just to make sure everyone's happy.
 * I may be "cheeky", but I'm really willing to make my fellow editors happy. Just don't make that impossible to achieve, please don't apply an unreasonable standard, and we'll get along great.  Thanks, again, for meeting me halfway here.  Mael-Num (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the "nervous slip in his speech" notion - as Mael-Num said, that's incredibly speculative. Even U.S. Presidents who are notorious about mispronouncing words and using poor grammar (not mentioning any names...) typically don't mess up their OWN title :) If there's a source within the program for what Winters' title is, the most reliable one would be the information provided by the character himself, and it's only reasonable to take that at face value. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The point to all of this is, we don't *******KNOW******* either way; whether he made a mistake (so we can't say that positively) or not (so equally we can't definitively say that he didn't make a mistake). Whether the US government is different or not. And since there's no source either way, we can't add it in. I am not continuing this discussoin as it's wasting my time and yours. The consensus is clear, the policy is clear; if you can't accept that then ask that the policy be rewritten. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 11:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the base-line demonstrated by the consensus here is this: the only reliable source which could back up the date in the article is a reliable source specifically and clearly stating the date, unequivocally. If you're attempting to guess the date based on various indicators throughout the episode, it's the definition of original research: an "unpublished argument". While certain facts you use in the argument are published, either as the episode or on the Whitehouse website, the argument itself, the so-called logical progression which draws various elements together, is concocted by you, and is unpublished. Unless you can find a published argument, it is the very definition of OR. Thanks. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As clever as that sounds, you can form whatever consensus that you want regarding how policy works and how it is applied within your little circle, and it still means nothing. Policy is policy, even if you and your friends don't understand how it works. Mael-Num (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, we were so close. What happened to "we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning... Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition." When a character identifies themselves, it's ridiculous to question whether they might be mistaken about who they are. Do we question other characters' names when they introduce themselves? When Astrid Peth introduced herself in Voyage of the Damned, did we question whether she might be mistaken, and that she's actually Julius Caesar who's been pulled through the space-time vortex and transmogrified by an Auton flux capacitor overload? No, of course we took her word for it, and referred to her as "Astrid Peth". To do otherwise is speculative, and to exclude information that's clearly intended to be taken at face value, is just ridiculous, and opens up the door to all kinds of information being questioned which doesn't deserve to be. By bringing this into question, and calling it Original Research, when there's absolutely no reason to suspect otherwise, you've just redefined what constitutes OR to include everything that we can't be certain is the same in the real world, because it hasn't been explicitly stated. There's no reason to suspect that the U.S. government is different, despite your assertion that we can't know for sure either way. We can't know for sure either way whether clouds are made of cotton candy or whether oil gets pumped from the ground or if it grows on trees. Milk, mirrors, etc etc... When Winters says "I'm the President-elect" we're meant to "assume" that it's true unless stated otherwise. But that's not really an "assumption," is it? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So close to what? There's no compromise. Either the information goes in the article or it doesn't. And since it violates one of Wikipedia's core content policies, it doesn't. End of story. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You conceded the argument last night. The consensus is for inclusion (3-2), unless you can get another 2 people to disagree with us.  Mael-Num (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" is not a vote. Three versus Two does not matter, consensus means that all parties must agree.  The359 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So close to seeing eye-to-eye, that is, which I thought we were from your previous comments. I disagree that it violates content policies - are you referring to your Original Research assertion? I've explained at length why it is not OR. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OR or not, it's trivial, unimportant, and useless information that does not belong in this article. Dlong (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That as well :-) ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a broken clock is right more often than you guys.World War Three (Doctor Who) shows at least one reference to date. If it's relevant there, why not here?Mael-Num (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read Other stuff exists. Just because someone else did something against policy in another article, does not negate the fact that this article's statement is against policy as well. The359 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly amazed that you're questioning the relevance of this. We're dealing with a world of time travel, which causes a great deal of confusion as the sequence of events in "real time." Being able to place the time of the story helps clear this up, and doing so adds value to the article. This is nearly, if not equally valuable to noting that a story was set in a certain place, such as London. "London, November to December 2008" is much more informative than "London, some time in the 21st Century" right? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone, that Wikipedia's policy is still that unless there is a reference referring specifically to The Sound of Drums, or possibly even Utopia and The Last of The Time Lords (as this is a three-part story), in regards to a date, then any speculation, even if it makes logical sense to you, is still speculation and falls under Original Research. No one has yet to find a reference where a writer, producer, or any one associated with the production of Doctor Who, or any date mentioned within those three episodes, specifically gives a date. Hence, the information will remain removed.

Wikipedia is not here to speculate about what a fictional universe chooses to borrow and what it chooses not to borrow from the real universe. The359 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And just to remind you, blanking such information is considered disruptive editing, and will likely get you banned from the project. Mael-Num (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing unreferenced material is not against Wikipedia policy. Feel free to nominate me for a ban. The359 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting, then, that there are plenty of resources that note the chonology of events in the series, and following them (some which place specific dates, and others which can be used as a reference point by placing relative time spans between episodes based on story evidence) can place this story in the fictional 2008. I'm sure most readers and fans are aware of these attempts at forming chronology out of the time-traveling confusion, and the relevance of doing so is perfectly clear (see above note as to relevance). Below are a few of such resourecs. If, from Winters' title, we can place the time of year to between first-Tuesday-in-November and Christmas, and several other chronologies place the story in 2008, then that means that it's between November 5 & December 24, 2008. This is still useful information for the context of the story, and it's certainly more accurate than simply saying (as the article does now) that it's set "in the 21st century." I don't see why we need to avoid vague dating ranges, when we're already defining it so vaguely that it could have occured any time within an entire century. Certainly to be able to narrow it down to a month-and-a-half span of time helps place it more closely., The Canon Keeper's Guide to Doctor Who, Outpost Gallifrey., also, in print: [ http://www.amazon.com/Ahistory-Unauthorized-History-Doctor-Universe/dp/0972595996 Parkin, Lance and Lars Pearson, A History: An Unauthorised History of the Doctor Who Universe (Des Moines, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press, 2006), ISBN 0-9725959-9-6]. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (millions of edit-conlficts) Unfortunately, all the material you listed is unofficial, self-published speculation! So not reliable. And when you say "I explained why it's not OR", you did NOT. Your explanation was rubbish and against Wikipedia policy, as nmerous other users agree. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's funny, the first link you provide claims that the events of The Sound of Drums and The Last of The Time Lords took place in October 2008 (with Martha returning 365 days later in October 2009). This would completely throw out your "President-elect" dating scheme.  Your second link does not even reach Season 3, and well, I can't read a book I don't own.  The relevance of a year may be helpful to the article (but most certainly not necessary.  Please see the example of a Doctor Who Featured Article episode I linked above.  But at most, you can say it's 2008, assuming other episodes set in the same time frame have said as such.  Your first link points out that Doctor/Martha/Jack return 4 days after Martha left in Smith and Jones.  That's the only reference to time I've noticed anyone presenting within this specific episode. The359 (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can do it that way too: Doctor Who stories set in 2008, ""The Sound of Drums" is set in 2008." (List_of_Doctor_Who_henchmen). I realize there is some conflicting information about, where dates in September and October are mentioned in these resources, but they place them close to the dates I'm talking about. But combining this information together with references placing the story vaguely in 2008, can give us a more definitive answer. Taking the President-elect title and extracting, from its definition, a time period, is a simple step in logic - not "original research." When they refer to the Valiant as an "airship" we take that meaning and conclude that it is a ship that flies in the air, not that it might possibly be called that because it was manufactured by Nike and thus used their "Air Jordan" branding. It's not original research to take the definitions of "airship" as well as of "ship" and "air" to take a step in logic to determine what they mean by "airship." It is information that is clearly presented and should be taken at face value. I have inserted none of my personal opinions, experiences, or arguments to take this simple step of logic. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid that's no good. Per the quote below, "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Wikia is self-published and is thus not considered a reliable source, per Wikipedia policy. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. "Simple step in logic" is still original research, according to Wikipedia.  Either put "this episode takes place 4 days after Smith and Jones" or "this episode takes place in 2008", or nothing, because those are the only two things you can reference so far.  And quite frankly, neither is necessary for the article.  Once again, I point out that the two Doctor Who articles which have been promoted to Featured Article status make no mention of when they take place. The359 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Try reading the actual policy, I tire of this game. Mael-Num (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another friendly reminded, quoted fro No original research:
 * This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. (emphasis from the original article, not mine).

In other words, as I have said before, something must say "The Sound of Drums took place on this date." The359 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're obviously misreading that policy. No one's publishing an opinion piece here.  This isn't a scholarly conclusion.  It's a direct statement of events that are apparent to any observer.  That's well within policy.  The actual issue at hand here seems to be that a handful of authors behaving badly(one of whom already has been called out for bad behavior with respect to Doctor Who articles at least once).  You're welcome to disagree, but if you can't offer anything in the way of a reason for why this shouldn't go in, other than a poor reading of a wikipedia policy that already isn't being applied to this article, then I'm afraid the consensus is for conclusion.  Mael-Num (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By entering your arguement that the episode is set on X date onto a Wikipedia article, you are publishing it. Hence, you are violating Original Research because you have no reference and are making the conclusion in your head.  There is no "direct statement" of a date within the episode, except for the mention that it is "Four days after Smith and Jones", which does not supply us with the date in which you are attempting to add.
 * No, the violation exists only in your head. This is exactly the same thing as giving a plot summary: you watch the episode, you see a detail, and that's that.  I've already shown how any user can simply watch the exact same episode I have, and see what the date is for themselves.  Hell, you could do it if you weren't so busy arguing.  That's the actual standard (try clicking and reading for once, it's in there).  What you're asking for is a character to turn to the screen and address the audience with "Today's date is..."  That's absurd.  Mael-Num (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A plot summary is based on facts presented in an episode. A plot summary however can not assume the reasoning behind a character's actions unless that character refers to it specifically.  I cannot say "The Doctor burned The Master's body because he felt it was honorable", because that is an assumption, even if it makes sense in my head.  You have not shown anything within the episode that gives a date between November 2008 and January 2009 (A primary source), nor have you found any outside reference which states it either (secondary source).  And yes, a date written down or mentioned by a character IS what we are looking for. The359 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good example of a bad analogy. I am not drawing conclusion, especially not about motives, so your argument fails.  A better analogy would be, "The Doctor burned The Master's body on a funerary pyre."  Do you understand the difference now?  Mael-Num (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, your whole arguement is a drawn conclusion that "the real world dates used by the United States government are also used in the Doctor Who universe". It doesn't matter if it's about motives or time, it's still original research. The359 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't have time to go over this stuff over and over again for your benefit. Please look at this, maybe it will make more sense than my explanation. Mael-Num (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse other uses of malicious intent just because they do not agree with your ideas. The359 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A big part of this argument seems to center around the definition of "original research" and how that policy is applied. Let me pose a hypothetical - if fictional events were established in a story as taking place in December 1974, and in the course of events a party took place with people screaming "Happy New Year" at the stroke of midnight, with one character saying "Hey, now it's officially "New Year's Day," followed by another set of events, would it be "original research" to state that the second set of events took place in January 1975? I think not - it's part of the "facts presented in an episode" and this is EXACTLY like what we're talking about here. No assumptions as to the character's motivations - you take the information given at face value. "New Year" has a meaning that is tied to a timeline, just as "President-elect" does. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

President-elect: section break III
This discussion is getting a little out of hand, and even generated some pointy edits on the side that were completely unnecessary. We cannot date the episode on the premise that in the real world, US election happen in a certain timeframe; projecting those real world events into a fictional universe where the electoral rules have not in any way been established, is a serious case of original research. Add to that that the term "Presient Elect" was most likely (but unproven) an error on the side of either the writer or actor, which leads us with even less facts to establish a timeframe. We simply cannot use this synthesis. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I really don't want to have to explain this all over again. Please carefully reread the sections above, particularly the bulletted segment of the section immediately above this.  It will hopefully get you up to speed.  Mael-Num (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to inform, I left a note on the WikiProject Doctor Who regarding this arguement, and invited them to offer their opinions, since I'm sure they are accustomed to writing these articles, as well as promoting them to Good Article and Featured Article status. I'm fairly certain they are "up to speed" on policy and what can be used in Doctor Who articles. The359 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming they're objective as well, I don't see how that could be a problem. Thanks for letting them know. Mael-Num (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you even bother to bring up if they are objective or not? Assume Good Faith. The359 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Objectivity has nothing to do with good faith. Questioning my motives in restating what is a desirable trait in all editors, however, is a violation of WP:AGF.  Please stop being uncivil.Mael-Num (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume editors are good and objective. It is correct, and civil, to point out WP:AGF if you seem to believe that there are some editors, possibly in this discussion, who are not objective. The359 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Important: Right, I'm going to be bold here. I am now banning any edits to this talkpage, by anyone involved in this dispute, that does not specifically address the issue at hand. Accusations of disruption, snide edit-summaries, incivility, accusations of incivility, pointing to behavioural policies, breaking behavioural policies, telling someone "go read the policy I can't be bothered"... I will consider any further edits of that type disruption. I'm sure you'll agree that they aren't conducive to forming a reasonable opinion here, and since you agree that they're un-necessary, you won't need to discuss this. Thanks for reading. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 18:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not within your mandate. You do not own this article or the talk page.  Blanking talk page comments would be considered uncivil and a clear violation of policy and best practices.  If you decide to act upon this stated intent, having received this warning, I'll have to bring this to the attention of administrators (who may consider the above violations, as well as the apparent fact that you are trying to make a point.  I'll be copying this to your talk page so there can be no confusion as to the fact that you were properly warned.  I can't stress this enough: Don't do that. Mael-Num (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I mention blanking comments? Must have missed that bit. Also note that your comment above wasn't helpful to the discussion and is thus disruption, and if you persist, you will be reported to administrators. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "I am now banning any edits to this talkpage...". Sounded that way to me.  If you'd like to retract that statement entirely, please be my guest.  I don't care to mince words, so let's just drop it and agree to be civil...please? Mael-Num (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This entire discussion counteracts your very threat. Please drop it and move on to discussion, as you yourself said. The359 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, what he said. Mael-Num (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

President-elect: new suggestion
As I understand it, there is a numerical and, I believe, actual consensus that the article is to remain as it is (with the date information removed). Each side has painstakingly tried to convince the other of its point of view; each side has been resolutely denying this! This is perfectly normal.

I propose that we accept none of us are going to change our minds, and rule the discussion completed and a result reached by general consensus; if other editors turn up later with new input, and change the balance, we can revisit the issue. But for now, since nothing useful can come of us all chewing this issue over still, I suggest we mark the section closed with discussion top and discussion bottom. ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to this. Consensus isn't a straw poll.  Mael-Num (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. However, I count two users in favour of the info, four users + two admins in favour of the info's deletion. Can you honestly, hand-on-heart say that there is a consensus for the info to be in the article? ╟─ TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs) ─╢ 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The suggestion above would be the best solution, if it's acceptable to everybody involved. Otherwise, one thing which I find helpful is creating a separate section where everybody summarizes their arguments. No comments, chit-chat or other fluff, just two bulleted lists with arguments, followed by a third sub-section of comments. That allows everybody (including outsiders) to get a picture of what's actually being disputed. It might be worth a shot. --Gutza T T+ 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that. I'll type something up later today, real life calls for now.  Mael-Num (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea. This would allow others to get a reference as to the points presented, so they won't have to read all this back-and-forth, which is mostly the same arguments repeated over and over, and ease the frustration brought by wondering if new comments are from editors who haven't read and considered the previous discussion. Let's put together that reference (both sides of the argument), and then allow for some time for others to read and/or comment on it. For those that don't think this argument is important, keep in mind that this has larger issues at play, mainly the definition and application of "Original Research" as well as the effect of referencing real-world elements of a fictional universe as they are presented within that fiction. The way both of these issues are handled could have effects for all of us for editing a large number of articles in the future. Likewise, I don't have time to do this right now, but will get to it later. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)