"

 Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who 

I know you're all probably sick to your back teeth of hearing about it, but considering how we have just changed the name of the 1996 television film to Doctor Who (1996) (in my personal opinion, an infinitely better name), why not try to resolve the seemingly never ending debate of whether it is 100,000 BC or An Unearthly Child? Talk:100,000 BC (Doctor Who)
 19:02, 9th January 2006 (GMT)

Okay can we also try to bring peace to the Middle East and Northern Ireland, bring harmony between all religions, sort out whether the UK is an international or European country and all those other things that have been fiercely argued a lot? ;-)  

I hate to say it, but I think the debate is about to get a second wind, seeing as the upcoming American DVD release, The Beginning dubs the story An Unearthly Child and also uses the Edge of Destruction name for the Inside the Spaceship two-parter...  

I think you're right, and that we should think about people less familiar with the original series; after all, a lot of people who have only watches the Ninth and Tenth Doctors in action will snap up the boxset, to learn more about Doctor Who. Calling it An Unearthly Child will not only help these ""newbies"", but also seeth the feelings of quite a lot of Whovians I know. (As well as this, at least half of the sources I have seen - official or otherwise - call it ""An Unearthly Child"").  20:39, 9 January 2006

The current opener to the article and the redirects handle the requirements anyway. Fandom has long been deeply divided and I don't think some notion of appeasing one wing of the debate should direct where the Wikipedia page is located.   
 I agree. As long as the proper redirects are in place and the article acknowledges the alternate titles, I think we're good. This isn't quite the same situation we had with the TV movie when an off-the-cuff remark by the producer calling it Enemy Within came to be seen as somehow official. (And the Doctor Who Information Network here in Canada apparently uses a different title altogether that was mentioned in a CBC profile of the series made to tie in with the Eccleston season. I forget the name that was used.).  

The CBC profile I think used ""Out of the Ashes"", which apparently came from a misreading of Shannon Patrick Sullivan's webpage.  As for 100,000 BC vs. An Unearthly Child, I agree that the redirects and article opening make the issue less pressing, but I also think that the title used in the DVD release (which isn't just in the US, but UK as well) lends a bit more weight to the An Unearthly Child argument.  However, if we do reconsider the page's location, I agree that it shouldn't be about appeasing one group or another, but what's best for the article.  — (talk • contribs) 

The DVD releases seal it for me - these should both be at their DVD titles, with the others being redirects.  

That's a good point to raise. I personally believe that it should be An Unearthly Child; but then it's not up to me, and I fully understand where Josiah is coming from. Why don't we settle this once and for all: a democratic vote where Whovians like ourselves vote for one title or the other. Anyone else agree/have another idea?   16:18, 11 January 2006

I'll put my vote in as An Unearthly Child also.  

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. The title of the serial is 100,000 BC. The title of the first episode is ""An Unearthly Child"". The fact that BBC Enterprises releases the DVD as ""An Unearthly Child"" is a matter of marketing, not historicity, and neither here nor there. The real reason the serial was called An Unearthly Child to begin with was because of a mistake by the Radio Times. AUC redirects to the right page, and there's no confusion. I'd rather rename The Daleks to The Mutants rather than change 100,000 BC to that.  (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 January 2006