# Talk:Army of Ghosts

I guess this episode happens in 2007: but can't see any other signals for dating. Has anyone any ideas?
I'd agree, I think it's almost a given that any stories in "Rose's time" are considered 2007 - and Yvonne did say "that was thing you saw shooting down the Sycorax at Christmas". As she didn't specify a specific Christmas, it's fair to assume she was talking about the "last" one - which we know was 2006 in the storyline. The_B 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a line somewhere in this story that states that The Age of Steel happened three years previously? Jsteph 10:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only just getting into Stargate: SG1 but I'm prtty sure there was a reference in this episode. Will someone more expert than I please confirm. 
When the Doctor was led into the big tech room there was a large spaceship which he called something that sounded like "A Jaffa Sunglider" there were also Sarcoffigi (spelling... I know) present. Now aside from Jaffaa (jaffah, whatever) sounding suspiciously like the SG1 characters I'm sure there was a similar scene in SG1 where Jack et al visited Area 51 where all the otherworldly tech was being stored and reverse engineered... I'm sure a door opened and a spaceship was shown within that lead to a main character declaring a very similar sounding line to the one the Doctor uttered...
Am I completely mad or did anyone else pick this up?
AWD

I thought that too, but the sarcophagus is more likely a reference to Pyramids of Mars.Anon
Yes but the Jaffa reference with it? AWD

The sarcophagus is definitely a Pyramids of Mars reference — Davies says so on the commentary. It was even in the script, apparently. Angmering 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I wasn't the only one! --86.4.170.224 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Doctor says, "It's a Jethar Sunglider", not "Jaffa" (which would have been a Death Glider, incidentally). It may be an oblique reference, but it wasn't "Jaffa". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Listening to them talk about it in Doctor Who Confidential, it turns out it may be "Jathaa" (Tennant says there is a double "a" at the end). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are rumblings of Captain Jack being in this, since this episode will essentially show us what Torchwood is for the benefit of the future series, it stands to reason that Captain Jacks involvmet with Torchwood may be explained in this episode.. James Random 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)  Blurt to me!

To be fair, I doubt it - apparently he's already said it won't be explained at first how he even got out of the future in Torchwood, so it's more likely to be established in Torchwood. However, it has already been said that in Torchwood, something has happened to Jack, so he needs to find the Doctor. Personally I don't think that will be explained this episode either, if only as it will probably take away too much which could be used in the Torchwood plots. The_B 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In previous interviews, John Barrowman has stated that Captain Jack would not be in Season 2 of Doctor Who - but will most likely be making an appearance in Season 3. A quick search on YouTube for 'John Barrowman' will provide plenty of evidence for people that require it. Cybogoblin 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the latest DWM (as reported on Outpost Gallifrey's news page) has more cast members listed as part of "Block Three", which the news page says that it (i.e., Shaun Lyon) believes to be the "Rise of the Cybermen" two-parter, "Army of Ghosts" and "Doomsday".  I think there was some similar "Block Three" casting in the last issue.  Would it be appropriate to add some of this casting to this page (with an appropriate caveat), or should we wait till we have more solid confirmation of which episodes the actors will appear in? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey is now reporting Roger Lloyd-Pack and Yvonne Hartman will be appearing in "Army of Ghosts" and "Doomsday", playing the same characters they play in the "Rise of the Cybermen" two-parter. How is Outpost Gallifrey's accuracy in predicting future stories? Is it worth adding? QazPlm 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The latest seems to be that Yvonne Hartman is in Army/Doomsday but not in Rise/Steel (and that page has been adjusted). Should the possibility that the name might be a reference to Yvonne Hartley from Spare Parts be added here? Daibhid C 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at this link http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/spoiler-cyberdalek.jpg. it has a picture of a Black Dalek and a Cyberman together

Or at least, a photoshop of them... 24.136.38.121 00:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well - the Daleks are actually in this, it seems fairly obvious. What isn't obvious is that there's a black Dalek in it too, not just all Gold ones. Dunno what purpose he serves, But I suppose he's some sort of leader to replace the emperor in their alternate reality.
After running the image through photoshop myself and looking for all the telltale signs of tricker, I have managed to find none. The most noteworthy aspects of this image are: Firstly the lighting brolly to the left of the image - it, like the Cyberman beside the dalek, is mildly reflecting the light from the dalek's earbulbs. Secondly, that the way the light is reflected of the dalek itself suggests that the colour of this dalek's head is a glossy black and not gold. James Random

Isn't Regenerations a Radio 3 Programe and not a Radio 2 Programe?

No, it was Radio 2. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My previous note was in reference to the idea that the TARDIS landing in Albert Square has already been done, in the Children in Need special Dimensions in Time, though my addition could have been more descriptive, heh. Phil 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we assume this is part of the end-of-season finale? It ends on a cliffhanger leading directly into AoG and Doomsday. Will (message me!) 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The ending of Fear Her isn't a cliffhanger, it just ends on some foreshadowing. Rose and the Doctor are in no immediate danger, after all. Furthermore, none of the action in Fear Her seems to be relevant to what's to come. They could easily have inserted more episodes between this one and the finale, which should make it pretty obvious that it's not part of it. JRM · Talk 19:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's that line from? It's pretty spoilerefic, and I'm sure the line in the trailer is "This is the last story I will ever tell..." - rather than out and out stating "I will die", isn't it? The_B 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I wasn't paying much attention, I am almost certain that you are right about the line. I am not sure how much of a spoiler this is, however, considering that Billie Piper's exit has been widely reported in the media. Having said this, I should also add that I do find these articles to contain a little too much hearsay for my tastes. Still, I guess this will all be fixed in a week - can't wait. :) Rje 23:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was referring more to the spoiler nature of her depature if the line was true. We know she's leaving, but through death hasn't been confirmed. Heck, for all we know she might just end up with Mickey again... The_B 01:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It could all be fixed now - we'd just have to go and remove everything that doesn't have a source. 24.136.38.121 14:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I saw that line quoted from a Sun article which was otherwise just a copy-paste of the BBC's press release about Billie leaving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.114.27 (talk • contribs).
The line in the trailer is 'This is the story of war on Earth.' So it has no obvious connection to Rose's death, if indeed that's going to take place.

"This is the last story I'll ever tell" - That's the spoilerific bit. Unless she suddenly becomes a mute - which I doubt. Death=no storytelling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesRandom (talk • contribs).
OR she could end up in the altnernate universe, making her unable to tell any more stories to this universe. It's Doctor WHo - it could mean a lot more than the obvious. The_B 16:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Characters telling stories after their death or other thing that should shut them up is a fairly common literary device. The character takes on the role of narrator, and is removed from their physical 'canon' self. Don't be surprised if there's no logical moment for Rose to have said that stuff by the end of all this. --81.155.124.36 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not presuming that, I was just stating that at the time (and even now) we still cannot conclusively say she dies until the moment the scene is shown. Even her saying "This is the story of my death" is not conclusive enough in Sci Fi. Of course, she might die, I'm just offering the alternative viewpoint. I have a theory, but I'll elobrate more on that later... The_B 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence People need to stop removing Mickey and Pete from the character/actor listing. Their appearance in the trailer is more than enough to justify their inclusion. --Jtfolden 19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone has a solid source for the Daleks beyond fan rumor, it shouldn't go in until we see the first one. Nor should Eccleston's return, Jackie's TARDIS trip (Which we already humiliatingly screwed up in Love & Monsters), Mickey or Pete's return, or, really anything. 
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a rumor mill. It's OK for us to not report the hot new fan speculation over the next week. In fact, it's much better for us to keep our mouths shut over the next week instead of putting up a bunch of untrue rumor that hurts our reputation. 24.136.38.121 14:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude - watch the trailer - you see someone get exterminated - definitely the same sounds as used by the dalek weapons. James Random 14:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Come on, if you dissagre that the Daleks are returning then fine, but us people with more than one brain cell will write the article, we actually watch the program, and if you did then you would know that Dalek technology was seen in the trailer for Army of Ghosts. Ian42 15:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I must be some complete dumbass then, because I didn't hear any dalek extermination effect.  I tend to agree with the point about not feverishly reporting every fannish piece of speculation about upcoming episodes - there are other places for that sort of thing.  Personally, however, I don't tend to feel particularly "humilated" if someone else puts in some rumour which turns out to be dead wrong - as someone mentioned on David Baddiel's Radio 4 program this week (in context of wikipedia getting something wrong) - this isn't really the "Information Super-Highway", more like the global toilet wall! Any regular reader here will know that already. PaulHammond 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Iain  - I couldn't have put it better myself (hifives) James Random 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look, you'll note that I didn't excise the Daleks, except insofar as there was certainty. There is something that looks like it might be an extermination effect, and the Doctor shouldering a something. But this is not sufficient evidence to proclaim the Dalek's appearance, proclaim the voice appearance, or, really, to do much more than say "There is something that looks like a Dalek extermination for a split-second in the trailer." There's just not reliable evidence past that. 24.136.38.121 15:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a big difference between saying "the Daleks are returning" and "it looks like some Dalek tech is being used". There are any number of explanations why something that looks like a Dalek exterminator is seen in the trailer. Maybe the tech comes from Torchwood, who got it from a Dalek. Maybe the Mill got lazy and just reused the Dalek effect. Or maybe, yes maybe, the Daleks actually will appear. At this stage, anything beyond "it looks like a Dalek exterminator" is just speculation. We didn't see a Dalek. No credible source has confirmed that there will be any Daleks. And for heaven's sake, it's less than a week 'til the episode airs, so what's the point of plonking in some speculation (which may or may not turn out to be right) when very soon we'll know for sure? Wikipedia isn't the place for guesses, as plausible as they might be. --DudeGalea 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's also problematic to say that the trailer "suggests" the Daleks are returning - that implies a voiceover like "And maybe... DALEKS!" Phil Sandifer 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"... IN COLOR!" ? :-) --DudeGalea 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If you look on the Merchandising pages for the BBC, there's now a Black Dalek becoming a available, its not a classic, its the new design - But it hasn't been in Dr. Who as yet, but they wouldn't announce the release of something like that so soon unless it didn't appear in the present series. Logic: Daleks must be in the last two episodes cause it hasn't been in any others... James Random 16:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's far too late but I feel the need to point out that black Daleks were in The Parting of the Ways.

Again, maybe, maybe, maybe. I'm not saying that your speculation is unreasonable. But it is still speculation at this stage, until some credible source actually says that there are Daleks. Or a trailer shows them, explicitly. Wikipedia isn't the place for making logical inferences, as fine as they are in the rest of the world. That just isn't the point of wikipedia. --DudeGalea 16:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Or it appears in Torchwood. Or in the Christmas special. Or they just wanted to release a new Dalek figure - Dapol released a number of Dalek colorings that never appeared in the series. Again, I'm not arguing that there's no chance that there's a Dalek in Army of Ghosts. What I am arguing is that there is not evidence that is reliable enough to include in Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually Dapol only released official dalek colours, with the exception of the Millenium Daleks. I don't think the BBC would be advertising torchwood or 3rd series merchandise just yet, plus, I don't think they'd release various coloured daleks for prosterity, since the nature of BBC canon has changed over the years, there's less they can get away with. James Random 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Dapol released a solid silver Dalek that never appeared, on top of a line of red Daleks that appeared only in non-canon movies. And, again - you think. But that's not a standard of evidence that's sufficient for putting it in the article. Phil Sandifer 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sun Newspaper this morning reported in an article regarding the appearance of Tracy-Anne Oberon "and she will face the Time-Lord's deadliest enemies - The Cybermen and the Daleks". Later, the report went onto mention that the actions of the Cybermen, who are responsible for the ghostly appartitions, would also trigger the arrival of the Daleks. James Random 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This may be a potential spoiler so don't read if you don't want to know, but....
"Doctor Who Confidential" are running a feature on Captain Jack Harkness and Torchwood. Whether this means that Capt. Jack features in the two-parter or not is another issue. You can thank this week's "Radio Times" for that piece of information. - 195.157.185.53 14:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the Spoilers evidnenced on this page with pictures of Daleks and what not, is pretty conclusive evidence that, after everything, I was right. So don't test me. As for the red dalek, I suppose its possible since the Merchandise is in the Depot where my Dad works (Is how i get all this cool stuff on the cheap) - but it remains to be seen James Random
Nobody was "testing" you - but Wikipedia can't go on anything other than verifiable information. The rumor wasn't conclusive evidence - the episode airing was. I'm glad we held off until these things were confirmed. 24.136.38.121 19:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone actually have a source for this rumor? 24.136.38.121 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like all they are doing is showing a clip from Series 1 at some point.  PaulHammond 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.sfx.co.uk/news/doctor_who_preview_-_episode_twelve,_army_of_ghosts - this enough?

Also, can someone link to the Ghostbusters rumor please? 24.136.38.121 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a snoop when I was at work, I know who the next assisstant is :p James Random 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd hate to be in the Doctor's shoes, having to explain to Jackie Tyler that her daughter died - that's if she does :S

{{spoiler}}
I have had several ideas and theories about this forth-coming episode, purely based on the "trailer" at the end of the "Fear Her" episode.
Of course, we know that Torchwood is involved, and there is an invasion of sorts. This may or may not be connected to the sphere that we see. In any case, I was rather taken by the concept of the worlds crossing over, and I was reminded of several things including the video game series, "Half Life".
I believe that "our" world and the parallel universe that The Doctor and Rose visited in "Rise of the Cybermen" are merging into one. 
The "ghosts" maybe in fact dead or missing people from the other parallel universe. This is evidenced by the return of the Cybermen (with the Cyrus logos), and Mickey. As for the Daleks.. well, maybe they invaded the parallel and are using technology along with Torchwoods in our worlds to bridge the gap.
I mentioned the "Half Life" series as in that, scientists from our world created a "rift" that caused portions of our world to be merged with Xen, the alien planet, and visa versa. I'll smile if The Doctor mentions the "anti-spectrometer".
Daniel (talk)

I believe that the Daleks must be parallell versions of this Universes daleks. Firstly because Bad Wold wiped out the second lot and secondly because they have a black dalek as their leader in place of the Emperor. It is possible that, whilst all host of daleks were falling through time, that one Dalek ship fell through the same gap in the universe that the TARDIS fell through in Rise of the Cybermen.
James Random<>Spank my bum and call me Nancy

Comic book death. Will (message me!) 20:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To conclude further with a theory that I was unable to post here yesterday, I can give my explanation to why it's called "Army of Ghosts" and to perhaps why the Bermuda Triangle was mentioned.
As we know, the Triangle makes ships and aircraft disappear, usually to another time or place. My idea is that the "ghosts" that we see within the trailer is actually the universe, or that mysterious sphere, is causing the universe the "balance out". 
Remember something to what Mickey said at the end of the two alternate Earth (Cybermen) episodes? "This will balance it out because they lost their Mickey".
So, in theory, if we call our world "X" and the Earth that The Doctor visited with the Cybermen in it "Y".. whatever is causing the "ghosts" to appear, is making anyone who has dead or has been lost from either world to appear within the other. The Balancing.
Say for instance you had a friend within this world, "X", who died of cancer or some other disease.. within the other parallel Earth, he or she might be alive and well. The "ghosts" that we see, are those coming across.
I also had the notion that from watching the trailer for this, that any/some/all "seals" upon any form of Imprisonment were removed. Don't ask me why I thought of that.

You're forgetting that the ghosts appear because the Cybermen are using this as a front for their invasion. Also, I believe that the sphere is some form of craft, possibly with the dalek or a cyberman inside it. Though the possibility remains that it is a giant Magnatron that's pulling in the universe through the dividing fault lines of our universe.
Daniel (talk)
Actually the Bermuda Triangle doesn't make planes and ships vanish into other universes at all, the real answer is sadly much more boring. There's a small volcano beneath the triangle itself, when this erupts is causes a bed of bubbles on the surface of the sea, any ship trapped in the bed of bubbles loses boyancy and is sucked under. As for the planes, well the WW2 fighter pilot simply lost his way because some of the land formations look the same from various angles. Once the pilot figured out he and his wing was lost, he had a panic attack and ended up flying around for hours until they ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea. As for the planes that followed it, well these were all Sunderland aircraft that were used for refuelling and filled to the brim will fuel and were known for their effortless propensity to just blow up without notice. James Random 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)<>Spank my bum and call me Nancy

Well, I was right in some respects. I did smile alittle when Yvonne Hartman mentioned that the lab boys had a new "spectometer" (not Anti-Mass).
So, the ghosts were Cyberman? I should have known seeing as the ghosts did look vaguely like them. The trailer also suggests that the Cyberman didnt know who the spehere belonged to, seeing has they are attacking the Daleks in the trailer.
The Daleks are also different coloured, we know that, but did anyone see the symbols on the black ones? I suggest that they originated from another dimension.

Is this the story (or first part of a two parter) that will feature the Cybermen? The title suggests it and if the season follows the same structure as last year, it would make sense. DavidFarmbrough 9:36 (BST) 16 Sep 05

I'm under the impression that the Tom MacRae two-parter, episodes five and six, is supposed to be the Cyber-story, although I have no inside knowledge on that. Angmering 22:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
This story is the second of this season to feature the Cybermen and possibly also the daleks. The first story to feature the Cybermen were the episodes Rise of the Cybermen and Age of Steel - Whilst the title of this first two-part episode does suggest cyberman involvement, I believe that it is actually referring to ghosts inthe sense that loved ones reappear in the episode and Peggy Mitchell (Barbara Windsor) is said to be visited by the ghost of Den Watts.... 212.219.119.130 13:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the trailer, near the beginning, does the Doctor point up and say 'We sent that thing back to Hell!' or, 'Send that thing back to hell!', and is this worth putting in the article? Sierra 1 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually he said "Send that thing back to hell" James Random 09:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Plus its not really worth putting it in the article since the Doctor seems to send everything he doesn't like "back to hell".  Spank my bum & call me Nancy

Will we see the Cyber Controller again - cause I'm hoping he was the one that escaped at the end of Age of Steel since he only took a fall into a burning building, so a cyberman might be able to withstand that.... James Random 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)  Chav's Are Naughty

You're referring to Lumic, I presume? PaulHammond 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Now what I wanna know is, how come the Cyberman have taken over the parallel Earth?  I thought Mickey had them beat, and was just off to Paris to start deactivating all the rest of them.  PaulHammond 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I wouldn't have thought Lumic would just leave five other Cybermen factories unguarded and unprotected now would he? ;)
Also, where is the source for the return of Lumic, who has been added to the Cast List? If it is as the Cyber Controller, Lloyd-Pack didn't provide it's voice if I remember correctly. The_B 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

He did provide the Controller's voice, but I've seen no evidence that he's in Army of Ghosts. —Whouk (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason I say this is because at the end of Age of Steel, we see a shooting star streak away from Earth. Now, since the Lumic unit was the only remaining unit not taken out when Mickey deactivated the Emotional Inhibitors, it stands to reason that a little tumble from a Zepplin might not have killed him and he may have managed to escape in some sort of craft. Which is why I asked if we'd see the cyber controller again. Not necessarily *as* lumic, since the nature of the Cybermen dictates that in the absence of a controller they'd simply select the next superior unit to be the controller. James Random>< Come on I was right about the Daleks, this'd be a encore
I don't think that Cyber Controller definitely won't appear in the episode, it's just I'm yet to see any conclusive evidence that he definitely will. The_B 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Y'all might want to look at the pull out poster in the Radio Times this week for a slight hint in this area :) Then again it might just be for a photoshoot.

Yep - she does appear in it and, surprisingly enough, she's supposed to be the same Sally from Age of Steel the one who was supposed to be getting married before she got cybermanified. :D James Random 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)  Genius at work!

I'd assume it might be "our" universe's version of her... The_B 16:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the Gareth listed in the credits her husband-to-be? 81.76.121.244 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In the end it looks more like someone saw Catherine Tate as "The Bride" and assumed it to be Sally. The_B 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So really, instead of been deadified, she might become a cyberman...?

Or even turned into a dalek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRandom  (talk • contribs) 
I don't think the quote is enough to presume she becomes a Cyberman, but something else could happen to her as well. The_B 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Being dead would be better.  And I don't think they'd do that to Rose.  PaulHammond 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it past them; I know if I was writing it I would do that. Vitriol 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes James Random>< Yesness

...Bluetooth headsets? Is there actually any confirmation that the Torchwood members are, like point #21 suggests in the Notes section, wearing the same earpods from Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel? I've only seen Freema Agyeman's character wearing an ear-mounted device, and that looked like an ordinary Bluetooth headset, not a Cybus earpod. Resakov 09:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In a way, I suppose EarPods were just that Universe's version of Bluetooth headsets, so I see how that assumoption could be made... The_B 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I see the connection. I guess I should've been more explicit and questioned whether the speculation about earpods should actually be in the article. Couple that with these two very Bluetoothy screengrabs (http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/774/aogpreview264jp.jpg and http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7739/aog27ve.jpg), and I'm wondering if point #21 should be removed for being speculation. I'd do it myself, but, y'know, noob an' all :} Resakov 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See image to the right: the RT cast list is wrong, and that Pete Tyler and Jake Simmonds appear in this episode. Since they appear, they should be added to the cast list.--Keycard (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep...I remember that Highlander: Endgame trailer where Connor and Duncan MacLeod jump into some sort of dimensional portal...wait a minute, that didn't happen in the movie, did it?  ;)   Anyhoo...just chill out and wait for the episode to air; then we'll know for sure.  DonQuixote 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added them back in, and referenced it (link to the screenshot). Will (message me!) 20:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This may not be an error if it is a cast listing JUST for Army of Ghosts. The trailer you lifted that image from contains scenes from both AoG and Doomsday. They may appear just in Doomsday and not AoG (uncertain).
Indeed: my understanding was that the Next Time dealt with the whole story and not just AoG. A screenshot from it isn't evidence they're in AoG. Plus, while that's probably Jake, I don't see that you can make it a certainty from that shot. 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it is blatantly visually him, even if you can't make it out, who else is it, then?--Keycard (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

higher quality screencaps might show the white male in the background wearing glasses - it's hard to tell - but if so, Jake doesn't wear glasses
And indeed, as we can now see from the episode, Jake and Pete weren't in it and that screenshot is indeed from Doomsday. —Whouk (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

don't view unless you can deal with spoilers
image from this week's TV Times (UK) -- background is Torchwood tiles
from April photoshoot for Radio Times
By the way, was the Peter Davison infomation ultimately proved wrong and removed? I can't find it anymore.

Told you the Black Dalek was in it. Preferr the Merchandise version though. 
James Random>< Hate to say I told you so.

"James Random", it's not a question of "I told you so". No-one's trying to deny your claims just for devilment. It's just that wikipedia demands stronger evidence than logical inference, no matter how valid it might be. If, for example, I discovered a wonderful new proof of Fermat's Last Theorem which was absolutely unassailably true, could I post it on wikipedia? No. I'd have to get it published first in a reputable journal, and then it could be included here, even if my proof was right. Wikipedia isn't the place for "Original Research".
Now, an actual picture of Daleks in association with an episode published in a reputable magazine is reasonably good evidence. --DudeGalea 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Dudgalea, you don't get it either. If something is clearly, logically true, then it has a place on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it's been published.--Keycard (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that's the case from my reading of the Wikipedia:No_original_research policy.
It's not good enough that something is "clearly, logically true" as you say. The policy states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (bold in original).
So it doesn't matter whether or not the Daleks are going to be in the story. The question is whether it is verifiable that they are. And the evidence up to a few days ago was clearly not good enough. --DudeGalea 22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those two Daleks in the first photo look like a couple of Dalek toys in a Torchwood type toyset.  The other photo seems more conclusive then the first.  But that's just how I see it.

That picture of the Dalek and Cyberman is from the Radio Times photo shoot, not an episode.
Lonemagpie 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I realize that.  I'm just saying the first photo doesn't appear to be proof of anything and if the two were taken for degrees of proof amongst the two photos, the second appears to be more 'proof worthy' then the first photo although the second photo still isn't conclusive proof of anything given that as you said it's a publicity still.  I'm not arguing for or against the Daleks being in this episode.
There is, of course, a still of a black Dalek and a bronze Dalek from the story in TV Times...
Lonemagpie 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The BBC are releasing a New Style (As seen in Dalek [2006]) Red and Black Dalek, suggesting that they might appear in this weeks episode....
So why the black Dalek?
It stands to reason that these are parallell universe daleks just as we're faced with parallell universe Cybermen. We know that despite the need for balance, Universes will diverge from each other, the little tykes. 

So!
My theory is this! That in some absence of an emperor dalek somewhere along the line, the Daleks did what they did in our universe oh so long ago - select a Supreme Dalek as a Field Commander. 

So why the Red Dalek?
Dunno, I just know that there's a toy of it on Daleklinks its BBC released, so! Possibly it is just a ship commander like the old ones. Apart from that, don't knwo if it'll even appear.

not sure which one you are talking about but unless it's black with black dots/globes it's old stock? if it's from eyeofhorus, ignore it as that site posts fakes...
No, definitely new model and definitly on listen as "coming soon".

(I remember reading about the famous Black Daleks. Apparantly they're like commanders, and have a lot of influence in the Dalek army. --Rai 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)--80.7.50.49 19:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

You might find this interesting...
Several sites have been asked to edit / change their reviews by the BBC and some pre-review posts on major forums like Outpost Gallifrey have been edited/deleted.
example:
google cached copy of SFX review
currently edited SFX review

What's the difference? —Whouk (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put the original comment, but I had a look, and earlier there was an extra part about the alternate universe (if I remember correctly) that has since been removed, presumably when Google's cache was updated.  The_B 00:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

There might be a hint starring us in the face on the cover of the Doctor Who Annual 2007, it shows the Doctor ALONE with the Dalek saucer fleet in the background.

Could just be illustrating a story in the annual. And the Doctor being alone is probably more about not spoiling the new companion than anything else. —Whouk (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The "voice of the Daleks" was also announced to be on the next "Totally Doctor Who" at the end of the last one, kinda strange since we have not seen them for an entire season (yet)

OK, now I think we have pretty good evidence that the Daleks are in it! :-) --DudeGalea 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this the first time we've seen Christopher Eccleston on screen in Doctor Who since the reprise at the start of the Children In Need special?
Yes, I think so. There haven't been any "flashbacks" before the one in this episode, so yes. --D'Argent 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
He could be somewhat seen in the Torchwood file photos shown in Love & Monsters. -- MisterHand 02:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot? The_B 02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I recently saw a clip from an old Cybermen serial (I'm only fully familiar with the new Doctor episodes) and in it there were loads of Cybermen breaking out of clear plastic stuff. As soon as I saw that in this episode I was reminded of that clip. Does that bear adding as a note, with the actual name of the serial (I don't know it) included? --81.155.124.36 19:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
If it was in colour, that might have been Earthshock, although RTD has often stated how scared he was of the Cybermen breaking out of their tomb in Tomb of the Cybermen. David 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was in black and white, and there were several levels, with Cybers climbing down ladders/stairs on either side. --81.155.124.36 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Tomb of the Cybermen it is then :) I think that clip made an appearance in Confidential after either Rise... or Age... David 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that's the one. There's a pic of the scene in the article. I've added a note, confirmed by the commentary --81.155.124.36 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghostwatch
Now
A deliberate reference? I think so. The_B 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel a note on Rose's Gelth comment linking to fan speculation prior to this episode's airing would be appropriate? ZoraJolteon 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. -- MisterHand 02:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Who changed the standard layout and why? It has been Notes ever since I first visited these pages? I also find it much harder to read the bulleted points, rather than the numbered points. What does everyone else think? Wolf of Fenric 00:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#"Notes" section in episode articles. --Kwekubo 02:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see why they changed it, but I agree that it's much harder to read. Bullets are great for short lists, but they look horrible for long blocks of text. Everything just runs into everything else. Ugh. Still, the decision's been made. --DudeGalea 09:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No decision has been made, its really only Bryan Derksen (talk · contribs) doing this. Tim! 09:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Why rock the boat? It was fine how it was. Wolf of Fenric 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
"Notes" violates the MOS. That header is to be used for footnotes, not bits of trivia. -- MisterHand 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is questioning that there are three bronze Daleks flanking the Dalek Supreme, here's a screenshot that shows the third bronze Dalek hidden behind the black one as they emerge from the Void ship. Third Dalek helpfully circled in red. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There's also photo on the Dalek page showing four daleks, one black and three bronze, surrounding the genesis chamber.

uh oh, they're back, and they have their very own genesis device, or not--152.163.101.5 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The fourth Dalek may actually be the Genesis Ark. --Gomez 14:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Not if you look at the screenshot I placed for Doomsday, where you clearly see three bronze Daleks and one black one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I was watching the end of Army of Ghosts and after watching it numerous times it seriously looks like a black Dalek, two bronze Daleks, and the Genesis Ark emerge from the sphere.  I realize in the trailer for Doomsday there are four Daleks and the Genesis Ark but at the end of Army of Ghosts it's three Daleks plus one Ark.
How can we tell? All we see is the base of the Dalek behind the black Dalek, and it's identical to the bases of all the other Daleks. Granted, the Genesis Ark might have the same base, but it could also be another bronze Dalek - given the presence of the three bronze Daleks in the trailer, what is the simpler explanation? Besides, if the Ark is so precious, would they bring it out first without doing a recon? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I do try and think these things through. :) I would be glad to change it back if it turns out on Saturday that lo, the Genesis Ark did indeed follow them out, but in the absence of that, I went with the more obvious assumption. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the bbc.co.uk doctor who splash page also shows four Daleks (if you wait for the flash to finish), so that does support that there are four. --145.58.67.9 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
To back up what I said earlier, you can see that the base of the fourth dalek is different then the other three when they first emerge and that when all the CGI Daleks land, you can see the top of the one behind the Black Dalek and it really looks like the ark.  But we'll know on Saturday for sure.  I'm certainly not denying that it's four daleks plus one ark in the next episode it's just that it seems to be three daleks and an arc in Army of Ghosts.
Like I said, you may be right, and I'll happily say so and change it when it's more obvious. Tell you what - in the interests of compromise, I'll make it vaguer and change "bronze" to "other". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to change it I'm just pointing out what I saw.  If nobody agrees with me leave it alone.
The ark actually did emerge from the Sphere last week. Play the scene slow and look closely to the Black Dalek's left (our right) as it descends. You can see one of the sloping ridges of the ark, even in the screenshot above. EDIT: Actually, it's even more obvious than that. You can even see the top of it as the Supreme touches down. --86.144.60.11 00:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"This two part story marks the first time that the Daleks and the Cybermen have met in the canonical series." - Should this point not be included on the Doomsday page, rather than here? They haven't actually 'met' yet - the trailer showed that happening next week. This episode was more akin to stories like The Five Doctors, which featured a Dalek and Cybermen who did not meet...(Oh and nice Chain of Command reference in the point above). Wolf of Fenric 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I crazy of did they call it they Canary Wolf building? A possible hint to Rose's fate? Probably bad hearing on my part--152.163.101.5 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just the "Sarf Landan" accent ;) The_B 14:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Doctor giving a variant of (me)brane theory in his explanation of the ship - and would the void ship thus be brane-less?
Jackiespeel 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU are braneless. ;) Vitriol 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak pun intended as a vague attempt to get into Bad jokes... Can someone edit the brane page for use in discussions such as this? Jackiespeel 11:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone answer the question un-punning-ly? Jackiespeel 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I half feel like adding a note regarding the previous crossover between EastEnders and Doctor Who.  Any thoughts?  Morwen - Talk 23:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a note should be added on the fact that when they were tracking the signal early on in the episode, their screen showed the opening sequence to EastEnders. Ok, it's just central London, but with three EastEnders characters in the episiode, I reckon the joke wouldn't have been lost on the makers.88.6.102.102 09:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Y'know I swear that some guy on one of the programmes (probably Ghostwatch) said that some of the ghosts had begun to talk. Vitriol 00:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

When the Doctor is watching television, the Ghostwatch hosts says, "On today's Ghostwatch, claims that some of the ghosts are starting to talk..." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not going to be expanded on :/ Vitriol 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably people imagining it, like Jackie and the cigar smell. 84.71.171.146 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)]

{{spoiler}}
Khaosworks, I was just wondering why you moved the trivia about Freema Agyeman being touted as new companion (which, by the way, appears to be confirmed by an embargoed press release from the BBC for tomorrow!) to Doomsday? I know it's a bit of a spoiler, but doesn't it belong here? David 17:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe cos she's playing a different character as the new companion, not Adeola from this story...Lonemagpie 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
She still comes and goes (as Adeola) in this episode, not Doomsday, though. David 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to put Agyeman's confirmation as companion in this episode because it was a spoiler, and we should try to avoid spoilers for future episodes ("past" references are okay). I tried several permutations, but it boiled down to the fact that the Sun note was there simply to set up either the fact that the Sun was wrong (which, as it turns out, it wasn't), or to do the reveal that Agyeman's the new companion. My view was that I, at least, couldn't construct it in such a way that preserved the Sun note and actually made it relevant without being inaccurate or spoilerish. So I moved it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If it was a spoiler before (and it wasn't really, because most seem to have assumed that the Sun had got it wrong), I disagree that it is now given that she's been officially announced as Martha. The only spoiler left is that her character dies in this episode, and anyone who doesn't want the episode to be spoiled shouldn't be reading the article. David 08:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact that she dies that's the spoiler. We don't have to note that she dies; it's apparent from the synopsis. The problem is that the Sun note was there originally to first talk about speculation that she was going to be the new companion, then after that it was used to say that ho ho, the Sun was wrong since Adeola died. We can't say that the Sun was wrong anymore because of the current announcement, and I don't think that a person who is expecting to be spoiled about the episode expects to be spoiled about Rose leaving and Martha Jones coming in, so Martha Jones shouldn't be in there. So what's left? A bare note that the Sun said this about Freema Agyeman being the new companion standing on its own is left devoid of context, because the original relevance: the Sun being wrong, is no longer operative. Again, I tried constructing it in a way that wasn't irrelevant, out-of-place, inaccurate or spoilerish and I could not do so, which is why I shifted it to Doomsday where, once it's apparent Rose leaves, Martha coming in is not that spoilery anymore. If anyone can come up with a construction that avoids all these problems, please do. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How about just "Freema joins the cast as a regular"? That doesn't mention Billie leaving. Lonemagpie 11:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: the very minor grammar change, from "Dalek Supremes" to "Daleks Supreme" - the Supreme part of the name suggests there's only one (either at a time, or in total) - if so, it should just say:

In the original series, all Black Daleks seen from The Chase onward were known as "Dalek Supreme".
If however there have been multiple Black Daleks at the same time, the plural should stand.
David 23:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC), Grammar Dalek

Barely worth an article of her own, surely? I'd redirect her entry to here, apart from she features in more than one episode. She's not really a "villain" nor is she a "alien" so - I dunno, what do people suggest we do about Yvonne Hartman ? The_B 22:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Default position is to redirect it to the first episode she appears in (which was done with Dr Constantine). Done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I see Simon Pegg dressed all in Burberry in the 'Trisha' clip? Maybe someone could check and update the entry if it was him. Pandini 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Link Looks very similar, but I don't think it's quite him. The_B 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it the same "void" as in the Troughton-era story The Mind Robber? It seems to be similarly brilliant white, and its description seems to match. For that matter, Troughton's Doctor was incredibly apprehensive about his respective "void". We know how Davies loves throwing in random continuity references that nobody sane will pick up on (heck, "Rels"?). Is this one of them? Though it's hard to be certain, it seems like a solid possibility. Does it, therefore, warrant pointing out? --71.139.18.66 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be the same, but it's entirely speculative and there's no evidence that it was RTD's intention, so it shouldn't go into the article. We don't see inside the Void so we can't say it's white. —Whouk (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
We sort of do, in that when the wall is "opened up" it becomes a glowing white void. When the wall "wraps" around it at the end of Doomsday, sealing the hole, the glowing whiteness is sealed away behind a dull white wall. Still, yes, it could be clearer. And fair enough --71.139.18.66 12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, the reference guide seems to make the same conclusion -- then extends it to Logopolis. Plus -- if you recall -- the Doctor's reaction at the beginning of Rise of the Cybermen, what he describes of what he expects outside, is essentially the same as in The Mind Robber. All things considered, it seems safe to assume that they intend this Void as the same Void from the original series. --71.139.23.128 22:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I live in America, so I'm not sure if this is relivant but I've never heard an electrician messure anything in horsepower per second and I'm pretty sure that's not what electric companies sell by. Would the trivia still be correct in saying that a Watt is Metric and not English. I mean, we do use centimeters sometimes too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.111.211.82 (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

The note makes the distinction between metric and imperial, not "English". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Torchwood traces the Doctor's interference signal to the Powell Estate at postcode SE15 7GO. This is a fictional postcode, but London SE15 is Peckham and Camberwell, London."
Technically London SE15 is Camberwell only, Peckham is SE5...I've lived in the area in the past so should know my area (currently live around the corner from camberwell now, but lived in peckham before) :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.145 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC) 

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Some references changes to the primary source rather than outpost gallifrey
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. Changed "Positvely reviewed by critics" to "Generally well recieved by critics" as the former implies there were no negative reviews, and there was probably one somewhere in the world
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
Future improvements could include checking for any notable negative reviews if this has not been done and finding alternative references for thosr that link to outpost gallifrey which is essentially a fansite.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the Tardis 'lands' in this episode, Rose presents her mum with a bag full of clothes to wash.
Is it the case that the Tardis does not have a washing machine on board?  If so, I think we need to be told. --Ndaisley (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned in the continuity section that this episode is the first occurrence of the Tenth Doctor's catchphrase, and that he speculates on "Alons-y Alonso" (which finally happens in the 2007 Christmas special? 101090ABC (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Army of Ghosts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721104122/http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/army-commentary.mp3 to http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/army-commentary.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)