Talk:World Enough and Time (Doctor Who)

Should Missy be considered a companion?
Missy is now travelling with The Doctor and helping him so does that not make her a companion for episodes Empress of Mars,The Eaters of Light, World Enough Time and The Doctor Falls and possibly The Lie of the Land as well but she doesn't actually travel with The Doctor in that episode but she does help him considerably. Thus The Doctor now has three companions Bill Potts,Nardole and Missy. Dalek1099 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * She was not credited as such, so no. --  Alex TW 03:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Companions are not necessarily credited though as only Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper were credited in Series 1 even though Adam and Captain Jack were companions and John Simm playing The Master in The End of Time was credited in the opening titles even though he certainly wasn't the Doctor's companion. In conclusion, you can't say that the names in the credit represent the Doctor and his companions. Dalek1099 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then do you have a reliable source per WP:V that backs up your claim that she's a companion, so that you're not inserting your own original research per WP:OR? --  Alex TW 01:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Page name
So, um, this should probably get the main World Enough and Time name with the Star Trek fan film demoted to World Enough and Time (Star Trek), no? Winter&#39;s Tulpa (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? This article has existed for 8 hours, while the Star Trek one for almost a year for an episode that aired a decade ago. This is nowhere near the primary topic. --  Alex TW 03:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Winter's Tulpa. Existing for longer doesn't make something a primary topic. john k (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (At the very least, the Star Trek fan film certainly isn't the primary topic) john k (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Further replies should be posted at the existing discussion at Talk:World Enough and Time to prevent duplicate discussions on the same topic. --  Alex TW 12:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Continuity element: Prime Minister
Since the plot doesn't mention that Razor refers to his and Missy's shared past as Harold Saxon, is there a point having that in Continuity? Or does someone feel it should be in the plot?ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Resemblence to the audiodrama Spare Parts
While there's yet no confirmation from anyone associated with the staff, several of the reviews note how the Floor 1056 setting and Cybermen origins mirrors the setting from the DW audio drama Spare Parts (Doctor Who) (The Guardian, AV Club, Den of Geek for example). Clearly if we had that connection from the staff, inclusion would be of no question, but without it, I wonder if it is appropriate to include with these sources. --M ASEM (t) 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest we wait till part 2 at least, it may make the connection for us. If not, it could be noted somewhere in the critical reception in a quote, I imagine. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Last appearance was not the first
The introductory paragraph falsely states that the Mondasian Cybermen last appeared in The Tenth Planet. They appeared throughout the entire run of the original series. The alternate reality Cybermen never appeared until the second season of the current show. All Cybermen in the original series were Mondasian. The Mondasian Cybermen have appeared once or twice in the new show as well but only briefly. Most substantial appearances of Cybermen in the new show have been the alternate reality versions or some amalgam that seems to be the product of the two sets of Cybermen meeting, which we have never seen or heard any explicit mention of.Parableman (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It says this is the first reappearance of "the original Mondasian Cybermen". All Cybermen following The Tenth Planet were heavily redesigned. Maybe it could be worded better but this episode is still notable in faithfully recreating a long-discarded design from 51 years ago. —Flax5 06:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that we can add this in the article anywhere, but it may help understanding the writers' intent: I'm guessing the reason the Doctor says "Mondasian" is to indicate that these Cybermen actually live on Mondas, which will be destroyed in his first encounter with them in The Tenth Planet. All Cybermen subsequent to this were either Telosian (Tomb of the Cybermen) or else without a homeworld at all (if memory serves). Just as we're all Terran humans till we start colonizing space, when we may become distinctly Martian humans for example.  ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Physics
Some calculations on the apparent physics of the episode, at Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2017_July_3.

All WP:OR as far as this article is concerned, of course; but maybe of some interest to some. Jheald (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow! Cheers for that link, I want to read through that whole thread. I do love when the science of a show is actually worked out. --  Alex TW 03:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast and reception
For the IP. Please explain your edits (in a civil manner, unlike this). 3.37 million viewers for an overnight rating is an extremely low value for the series, hence the term "However" in the next sentence. Furthermore, "fared relatively well" is in comparison to the other series that aired on the same nigh; viewers were low for all series across the board, meaning that in comparison it fared well. You've been warned by another editor to take some form of dispute resolution, so I've started this discussion for you, so please allow the status quo to remain while you gain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. Cheers. --  Alex TW 01:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason based on policy or guidelines to revert to some supposed status quo. That is just your incredibly arrogant gambit after your spurious RFPP failed. "However" needs to contrast with text in the sentence preceding it, not text here on the talk page. "Fared relatively well" is your opinion as a fanboy. It adds nothing of encyclopedic value. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your uncivil attitude is very unbecoming as any form of editor. WP:STATUSQUO exists as an essay, and while it may not be a policy or guideline, editors try to stick to using essays as an editing guide - I would strongly recommend that you do the same. Don't forget that at the RFPP, after you begged me to be punished, it was you that was warned.
 * I stated that 3.37 million is a low rating; perhaps "The episode was watched by 3.37 million viewers overnight, one of the lowest ratings for the series" would be more beneficial. "Fared relatively well" is not my opinion, it is in comparison to the same shows on the same night, which is supported by the given sources. --  Alex TW 02:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely no need to lose the information on the unusual low ratings. The improvements to clarify further sound good. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking kidding me? Another unexplained revert? You think it's funny? Explain to me what information there is about unusual low ratings in the sentence, and what you understand the meaning of the word "however" to be. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Read what I said. I'm not here to repeat myself for the benefit of someone who cannot bring themselves to be nice and seemingly refuses to get the point anyway. Kindly improve your attitude, then discuss how you can improve what is there - rather than trying to force your removal of content. Dresken (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, you're just trolling then. I'm going to revert your vandalistic restoration of incorrect syntax. If you believe the article's syntax needs to be incorrect, explain why. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how could possibly I explain why to someone that refuses to get the point. Anyway I added Alex's suggestion to improve the grammar while retaining the relevant information - because you seemed unwilling or unable to wrap your head around the point to discuss it. Personally I don't think poor grammar is ever an excuse to erase relevant information. Dresken (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)