# Talk:Time Crash

Belgium is posiblya refference to Hitchhiker's guid to the Galaxy, where Belgium is cosidered to be the worst posible curse word, as the fifth Dr says "that's a bit un-dramatic isn't it? Belgium"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave'O (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 
Possiblely. ADBandicoot (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say it's certainly a nod to Douglas Adams, a one time script editor for the show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.123.132 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 

Damned Wii and it's lack of cut and paste! This confirmed on the BBC Doctor Who news page. Can another editor flesh this out? Thanks. GracieLizzie 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add these characters to the cast without providing a reliable source which says they appear. Thanks. GracieLizzie 14:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

can we add the plot now? i've just watched the episode, i'm sure its notable now.---- Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the plot section to more accurately represent how the tenth Doctor resolved the situation. The TARDIS didn't fire a supernova, it actually became one as the tenth Doctor blew up the TARDIS as it was the "only way out."Blaine Coughlan (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a forum, whatever. But that was just brilliant! -- 86.153.147.167 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if the Tenth Doctor did look a bit of an idiot in front of the Fifth. Now I'm off to donate to Children in Need... -- Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Double agreed (both points). Fantastic, brilliant, more of a love-in for the fans than an episode but I ain't complaining about that. Yes... speculation could allow us to say (but we obvious can't do so in the article) that the 5th Doctor was a little bemused due to the Time Crash which could explain why he didn't get all the not so subtle hints about who the other bloke in the TARDIS was. -- 84.92.120.61 (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor infers that the Master is gay (no beard but a wife... well...)
The episode is cannon
The interior of the TARDIS being referred to as akin to Desktop skins
The Doctor doesn't need glasses
Unlike previous meetings the Doctor recalls this meeting from when he was the 5th Doctor. 
The 5th Doctor's aged appearance is accounted for within the story.
About to watch it again but those were a few that jumped out immediately.-- 84.92.120.61 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
how does the fifth doctor know who LINDA are? he has never met them and the abzorbaloff absorbed them didn't he?---- Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 

A cannon is a weapon.  The word you wanted is canon.  -- Davidkevin 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 
We never saw him meet them but it doesn't mean he isn't aware of them even as the 5th Doctor.-- 84.92.120.61 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll deal with those individually - 
1) - Don't agree, 2) - Agree, 3) don't think that's needed, 4) not relevant, 5) agree. StuartDD contributions 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Have another watch online it is clearly a reference to the fact that the wife of a gay man is referred to as a beard. Clear as day.
Desktop theme - People have speculated for years about how the TARDIS interior changes. It is an answer to a long pondered question.
Glasses - He wears them to look intelligent and does so because his 5th incarnation did so... It is relevent to his character surely?-- 84.92.120.61 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
also inThe Last of the Time Lords the doctor hugs the master, which is a bit of an unusual thing to do to your worst enemy, so the doctor might be gay aswell.---- Lerdthenerd (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not gay, perhaps sexuality for the TimeLords is as alien a concept as it is for Captain Jack... As seen in the Doctor Dances, however the beard comment would suggest otherwise.-- 84.92.120.61 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Er...yeah...I think you guys are reading too much into it.  As they say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  "Beard" might be a slang word, but it's also that thing that grows on men's chins -- the thing that all classic-series, non-decaying Masters wore.  DonQuixote (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...ok, on second viewing...VWOOOM!--that one flew over my head.DonQuixote (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah if you're aware of the term it kinda jumps out, doesn't it?84.92.120.61 (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It certainly stands out once you've been told the reference. Although if we're noting this sort of thing, then it's heavily implied in The Time Monster that the Master has an affair with Queen Galleia.81.174.173.79 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

HOLD THE PHONE! He tells the 5th Doctor that the Master has shown up again... he then is later bemused (Last of the Time Lords, Utopia etc etc) as the 10th Doctor when the Master shows up... which means we can't definatively say that he remembers the events of this episode... It is more akin to the Doctor remember meeting himself from a previous multiDoctor episode when no further reference appears in future episode (and when they meet again they do not remember going to have been having the meeting only that they did meet before).
Maybe he forgot because he didn't think it was important?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Harkness (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 

OK I'll try and put that clearer. In the past it would appear that within a cross over the Doctor could remember previous cross-overs but did not remember the events of that crossover from a previous incarnation. In this episode the 10th Doctor can remember the events from the POV of the 5th Doctor. HOWEVER it would appear he only does so within the episode rather than returning to his own time and the 5th, 6th and so on incarnations living with the knowledge of this episode... otherwise he would have remembered the Master coming back...
OK... out of breath now... Does that make ANY sense whatsoever?-- 84.92.120.61 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the last post. Otherwise it's a continuity nightmare. -- Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's better to say "wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff" and be done with it. Will (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me.84.92.120.61 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a continuity problem, nor do we need to hide our heads in the "wibbly wobbly" sand.  Personally, I think Time Crash actually fleshes out Tennant's acting choices in Utopia.  The bits of Utopia where he's acting like he doesn't want to  believe there's another TIme Lord — but yet he knows there is — are made better by Crash.  They can now be read as him denying the knowledge he has from the Fifth Doctor.  He knows, from the very first moment, not only that there is another TIme Lord, but just which one it is.  It's akin to being told today that on 30 November 2050 your parent will die.  You laugh it off now, but you still tuck that info away.  When the phone rings on 29 November 2050, and the caller ID says it's a call from home, you can't help but answer the phone with great trepidation, because you instinctively know what the caller is going to say.  Tennant knew it was specifically the Master; that's why he was so freakin' scared.   Now we know why. CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 08:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, it resolves the continuity issue of why seeing Simms' Master on the TV screen in The Sound of Drums allows the Tenth Doctor to know it's the Master when other indications of the series are that he should've been able to sense it in some ESP way.   He knows Saxon is the Master because he puts all the clues together.  No beard.  A wife.  Martha's voice recognition theory.  The light goes off when he sees the two of them together, cause he's actively looking for that based on the knowledge that he passed to the Fifth Doctor. CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 08:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Good theory, need source to back it up, though.  But this scene explains Tennant's acting choices more generally than that (and breaks fourth wall, or something).  "You were my Doctor."  That's Tennant to Davison, not merely Tenth to Fifth. Gwinva (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with the 4th wall break but not the acting choice comment. I feel that he was shocked, especially about his having a wife. He explicitly says he will recognise the Master when he sees him so that explains that. The wife is a shock perhaps because the Master has always been a solo act, has been scathing of companions or perhaps even due to another reason alluded to within crash (beard). Good thinking but I personally think denial is a stretch as the whole point of the last 3 series was that he firmly believed he was the last of the Time Lords.84.92.120.61 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This whole 'Time Crash's events help the Doctor recognize the Master' is pure original research. The Doctor states 'Time Lords always do [recognize other Time Lords, even after regeneration]', implying something far greater than another incarnation passing off information.
Simple answer. 10 tells 5 that he'll eventually meet a version of the Master without a beard, but with a wife. 8 meets a Master without a beard, and who has a wife (although the Doctor never meets her). He might naturally assume (even without having met the wife) at that point that that's who 10 was talking about, so when Utopia comes around, the surprise is preserved. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really as for the whole of his existance until Utopia he firmly believed he was the last of his kind.84.92.120.61 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this episode used some distinctly Davison-era (and distinctly non modern) synth sounds in its soundtrack, undoubtedly some kind of reference to 80's Who. It'll need to be sourced of course. -- Kelvingreen (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I had wondered that myself but without a source... Any mention in the confidential? I haven't been able to watch the whole thing yet as it keeps crashing (too many viewers I expect).84.92.120.61 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it truly necessary to source something which is subjective but self-evident? Matthew Platts (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is.  I was editing the production section on another point, when the line was removed by another user.  This caused an edit conflict.  I therefore had to decide how to re-edit the section to resolve the conflict.  While I agree that the previous comment about the harp playing when the two Doctors look in each other's eyes was a bit too speculative, I reverted, but slightly edited, the line about the music containing references to the musical style of the 5th Doctor's era.  While a source for that might be nice, it's no more necessary to get a source for that than it is to get a source for the plot.   It's such an obvious departure from the "norm" of orchestral music for the new series.  Still, I don't mean to start an edit war; it was just a decision that had to be made at the time in order to submit the text I was actually there to add.  CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The 10th doctor compents on that the 5th doctor saved the world with a kettle and string which makes this after the ordinaly sonic was destroyed!!(On 5TH time-line)

The continuity section currently looks like a trivia section.  Is there any way we can integrate these bullet points into a cohesive paragraph?  There must be sources to indicate Moffat's a veteran fan who willingly wrote his script to include all this material (TV Zone for one). --Affably yours (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Khaosworks is getting a bit on my nerves as he insists the Doctors should be listed exactly as they are credited on the BBC website. This only creates confusion, as it is not clear what they link to. They should be listed as the Tenth Doctor and the Fifth Doctor respectively. I'm not going to edit war, requesting input instead.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree crediting them both as 'The Doctor' is confusing, the article should tell us which doctor is which.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Khaosworks also claims that he has credited them both as the doctor because the other multi doctor stories do the same thing, shold we edit those articles aswell?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good idea.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
shrug* The idea in the cast list is to follow the official credits — that was the format agreed on in the style guide way back when: see the WikiProject page. They are not credited as the Fifth or Tenth Doctors, they are not referred to in the story as the Fifth or Tenth Doctors, they are simply credited as "The Doctor" - and that's been the way it's been done on screen ever since "The Three Doctors" when all of them were credited as "Dr. Who". Why there's going to be any confusion perplexes me somewhat, since the very header of the article explicitly states who is who and links it properly, the infobox says who they are and the entire point of the story is that they are both "The Doctor". The cast list is simply as credited, that's all. Where's the confusion when there's so many other links making it clear? There's only confusion if you want it to be. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. As such there is absolutely no problem in clarifying the cast list. Having them listed as "The Doctor" simply because they are credited that way has absolutely no basis in MoS and is absolutely just nothing more then fancruft. Ultimately, when there are two links pointing to different articles, they must look different as well.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about fandom or fan site, so I'm wondering where that characterization comes in. And it seems rather bizarre to call following the official credits "fancruft". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem in clarifying the credits? Where does it say we must follow the credits by the letter? When you can answer these, then you may have a point.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's a compromise, we can have the credits section as a transcription of the on-screen credits whilst differentiating between the Doctors in the infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm...just realised that this doesn't solve "Time Crash" since, apart from the opening titles, there were no credits.  I guess we could use "The Parting of the Ways" as a Guide. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't "transcribe" anything... This is an encyclopedia; it should be informative, so we should simply say "Tenth/Fifth Doctor". Why does everyone insist on being so vague?  — Edokter • Talk •  16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As was previously said using "The Doctor" is standard practice and reflects the credits (the whole point of the credits section). As has also been said the opening paragraph and infobox tell you which Doctor is which. There is no confusion. An encyclopedia should follow the official credits. Further clarification is given in the article. No problems at all. The character's name is not 5th Doctor but The Doctor as the credits should reflect.84.92.120.61 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
i still agree with edokter, the cast list needs clarifying, i say change it to fifth/tenth doctor.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the listing links them to their respective pages and has their respective actors also. I think that's enough clarification. InsaneZeroG (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't cutpaste the credits as it's technically a copyright violation. We should clarify a) the same role played by two people, or b) the same person playing two roles. See The Family of Blood - Tennant was only credited as "the Doctor", but only doing so on the cast list neglects the 35 minutes he wasn't the Doctor. Will (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The episode on the DVD credits him as "The Doctor/Smith". DonQuixote (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, the original broadcast credited him as the Doctor. Will (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I repeat my question: what is so wrong with showing which Doctor is being referred to? Credits are irrelevant; they just act as a source. Any information that can be added, should be added. Plus I dispise similair looking links pointing to two different articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the fact they're both listed as 'The Doctor', which is their name (and it's what the whole scene is about: two Doctors in one place; it's supposed to be a paradox!!)  Anyone still confused by this after reading the article will twig as soon as their mouse flicks over the links.  The point is, they're the same person. Gwinva (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
With different actors portraying them. InsaneZeroG (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
i'm slowly losing my patience, what part of the article is not clear enough don't you get? Edokter and I strongly agree that it should be changed to tenth doctor/fifth doctor. They maybe separate incarnations of the same character but they are talking to eachother as separate characters, the cast list needs to clarify this.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I add a vote for both actors being credited as "The Doctor." That is the character's name. You never hear of other "multi-actor" parts being refered to as "The fourth James Bond" or "The seventh Sherlock Holmes." As has been pointed out, all of the previous multi-Doctor stories credit all actors as simply "Doctor Who" or "The Doctor." The links still go to the individual sections anyway. If their "number" must be specified (which I personally think is unnecessary in this case,) it would be more accurate to put "The Doctor (Fifth Incarnation)" or "The Doctor (Tenth Incarnation)" Blaine Coughlan (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I like Blaine's idea. The Doctor (fifth incarnation) is a good compromise. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's because I have never seen two James Bonds or Sherlock Holmeses appear in the same movie. And I think using "(fifht incarnation)" is a bad idea. They are known as the Fifth/Tenth Doctor, they link to their respective article, so it should show that way as well.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you never seen the original movie of "Casino Royale??" There are LOADS of James Bonds in that! :-)194.74.242.33 (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Tenth Doctor/Fifth Doctor is a better idea.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Look, the problem is that there are two different points of view here.  One side wants to record the on-screen credits in an encyclopedic manner.  The other side wants an easy to refer to cast list.  Try to understand the other side before losing one's patience.  Personally, I don't see why we can't have both.  As I've said before, a compromise that includes both is to have an on-screen cast list as well as referring to the characters as Fifth Doctor/Tenth Doctor, etc. in the article and infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, neither character is known as the Fifth or Tenth Doctor. Neither of these names have ever been used on-screen in the context of a story. The designation of Fifth or Tenth (capital leters) is a fan convention. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That is simply not true. The ones why use these terms the most are actually the BBC and the producers of the show.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Which terms originated in fandom. There is no actual example of it being used in the context of a television story. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I definitely prefer "THE DOCTOR" for both. It's just so much more stylish, not to mention accurate.194.74.242.33 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with edotker, even when the doctor regenerates he is aware that he has changed, and in The Parting of the Ways, Rose is shocked by the doctor's change in appearance and accuses the doctor of being a slitheen.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that he's still the same person, "The Doctor."194.74.242.33 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Debatable. "New man, new face, new everything." Plus, "I was you," with the distinct implication that his past self is a different person. ShaleZero (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


### Not over yet
I'm not going to let this die just yet. Obviously, we lack consensus. It's evil, but...  — Edokter • Talk •  23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


#### Straw poll
The Doctor
The Doctor
Blaine Coughlan (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (In "The Three Doctors," all three actors were credited as "Doctor Who," in "The Five Doctors" and "The Two Doctors," all actors were credited as "The Doctor." In the official credit listing for "Time Crash" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/2007/credits/credits_3cin.shtml, Peter Davison and David Tennant are both listed as "The Doctor" and so should be listed as such here too. The individual links still go to their individual profiles anyway.)
khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC) My reasons have all been stated above.
DonQuixote (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) I'm for both having a record of the on-screen credits and referring to the characters by incarnation number in articles.
84.92.120.61 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC) The Doctor/The Doctor. The article is clear enough and anything else doesn't make sense.
Gwinva (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)  I've stated my reasons above.

The Tenth Doctor
The Fifth Doctor
 — Edokter • Talk •  23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
--Karen | Talk | contribs 09:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) But really, I can live with it the other way, as long as they're called the Tenth Doctor and the Fifth Doctor in the rest of the article. All we lose that way is the identification of the actor with the incarnation--slightly annoying, but hardly tragic. We're flirting with WP:Lame here, IMO.


#### Compromise
Rather than continue the argument over crediting the Doctors as "The Doctor" (which is unclear which one is being reffered to) or Fifth/Tenth Doctor (which is contrary to the credits, perhaps hidden links should be used as follows:
The Doctor
The Doctor
MartinMcCann (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! That's what it's like at the moment. Blaine Coughlan (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Works for me! --Karen | Talk | contribs 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's still ambiguous... which is why I brought it up in the first place. We can't have similar looking links linking to different articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  09:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem?  All you have to do is mouse over the link and it tells you where it goes.  It displays as the credits do while still linking to the correct character.  MartinMcCann (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That is the problem; One should not have to "mouse over" or do anything else in order to know what article a link points to; it should be visible right away.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
i agree with edotker this goes against WP:EGG the link must be the same as the comment--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


#### Conclusion??
This poll's been up quite a while now and the result seems to be quite conclusively for the "The Doctor/The Doctor" option. (Even one of the people who voted for Fifth Doctor / Tenth Doctor is perfectly happy with the way the article is now in any case.)  Blaine Coughlan (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not happy... it still violates WP:MOS.  — Edokter • Talk •  11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
like i said in my previous comment it is also now violating WP:EGG the link should read the same as the mouseover comment
(the link to the fifth doctor article should read fifth doctor not The doctor), also the links shouldn't have secret messages--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Then...just change it to link to The Doctor (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
but it is still violating WP:MOS, the links need to be clear about what doctor is being played by whom?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There's an unnecessary distinction implied by the phrase "what Doctor is being played by whom?" It is the same character, not two different ones. David Tennant plays The Doctor as does Peter Davison... 194.74.242.33 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


#### Don't take my word for it...
BBC fact file unambiguously credits them as the Tenth and Fifth Doctor.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Has it changed? Because when I click the link, I see them both credited as "The Doctor". --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Fact File describes them as Fifth and Tenth, but the official credits refer to each of them as "The Doctor".  MartinMcCann (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I realize that people are sometimes a bit dismissive of the Fact File, but it is an official BBC source, and it strengthens the argument for the clearer  Fifth/Tenth distinction.  And I wouldn't say I was "perfectly" happy with the compromise.  I just don't like to argue endlessly over small details (or anything for that matter). --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
i agree with Mavarin, don't assume the fact file is not offical its part of the offical website.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the Fact File wasn't official - I was pointing out that the credits for the actual episode were different.  Given that we should go with what's stated on-screen for the credits, that's the source we should use for them.  MartinMcCann (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up as best as I can, removing obvious and subtle speculation, trivialities and coincidences. Let's hope we can keep those pesky trivia bullet points away. Allons-y! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to get rid of those "pesky bullet points"? They are standard in every other episode page for episodes/serials of Doctor Who.
Please see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs - "Article generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points." Also, please look at Doomsday (Doctor Who), a GA class article that is all prose and no bullets. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hemlock is correct.  Prose is better than bullet points.  This is mentioned in a few places in the manual of style, and is pretty straightforward if you take a look at other encyclopedias.  There's no reason that all the information people want included cannot be included in a prose-style article, so this isn't a content issue, simply a style issue.  kmccoy (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The project is also trying to push for a stylistic change. We're supposed to aim for prose such as in An Unearthly Child and "Doomsday (Doctor Who)". Will (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder that bullet points are notes for future expansion into well-written sections, so it's a natural progression of article writing. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three references in the dialogue to Multi-Doctor stories. I reviewed the episodes in question and I'm pretty sure these are deliberate on the part of the writers.
1. The Three Doctors: At the end of the Three Doctors, the black hole that features in the story is turned into a supernova. Compare this with the supernova the Tenth Doctor sets off to nullify the black hole caused by the time crash.
2. The Five Doctors: The Tenth Doctor mentions the Fifth Doctor meeting "Time Lords in funny hats." The only time this happens during Davison's tenure is in "The Five Doctors". Also, the Fifth Doctor's words about the First Doctor in that episode: "I used to be a bit tetchy. But fortunately one mellows with old age."  Compare with the Tenth Doctor: "I was always trying to be old and grumpy, like you do when you're young, but then I was you."
3. The Two Doctors: When the Tenth Doctor puts on his glasses, he says "Snap!" The Second and Sixth Doctors both say "Snap!" when meeting each other for the first time. 

Again, I'm pretty sure these were intentional references, but this can be debated. Should these be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallan007 (talk • contribs) 

Although you may be right, this would be original research, and so it can't be added. If you can find a notable independent source that states this, you could possibly put it in. --Brian Olsen (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Coincidences are not references. Given that Doctor Who is a sci-fi show, supernovas and black holes and the like are to be expected. The Time Lords ALWAYS wear funny hats. Now, as for the age one, if it had been a word-for-word or close enough quotation of his line in Five Doctors, that WOULD be a reference. This one, however, is likely another coincidence. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As for "Time Lords in funny hats." Arc of Infinity anyone? 86.156.202.221 (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Which was itself a sequel to "The Three Doctors", so we're back to the link.  Though that might be pushing it a touch.  MartinMcCann (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

About.com has a piece that mentions references, but I'm not sure if they're a WP:RS or not. Any thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I got this from the Tardis wiki. Anyway, if the 5th Doctor met his future self, then why was he worried about his regenaration
in his final story? ADBandicoot (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See the "When incarnations meet" section of Doctor (Doctor Who) for a discussion of memory issues with respect to multi-Doctor stories. Basically it doesn't appear that the Doctor remembers all moments of such encounters at all times. Besides, when dying of spectrox poisoning, he might be a bit too distracted to think of that strange future Doctor he met for seven minutes a few years ago. --Karen | Talk | contribs 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The 1996 TV Movie and a few other episodes have equated "death" with "regeneration" so the Fifth Doctor asking "Is this death?" probably refers to that, as opposed to the big sleep. 23skidoo (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the first time that a crossover story has addressed the returning actor being older than he ever was during his own tenure (sometimes substantially older, like when Troughton returned for The Two Doctors)? I haven't seen all the crossovers, but I can't recall anything about that in the ones I have seen, or in the plot summaries I've read of the others. ShaleZero (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is, yes.  It's been ignored in previous multi-Doctor stories. DonQuixote (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
When he returned to the TARDIS, Peter Davison (born 1951) was almost exactly twice his median age during his Fifth Doctor heyday (1981-1984).  In The Two Doctors (1985), Patrick Troughton (Second Doctor, 1965-1969) had aged nearly twenty years, which was noticable.  But I suspect audiences silently expected and absorbed such changes in appearance in 1985 whereas now there is a fan culture always eager for in-universe explanations of out-of-universe facts.  In the case of Doctor Who, it's the strength of the fan culture that kept the idea of Doctor Who alive for a decade and a half when there were no regular TV series, so I'm not exactly going to complain about this! --Tony Sidaway 12:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Trougp03.jpg Troughton as the Second Doctor (1965-1969)
Image:Thetwodoctors.jpg Troughton reprises the role in 1985
Image:Fifth Doctor.jpg Davison as the Fifth Doctor (1981-1984)
Image:Time Crash.jpg Davison reprises the role in 2007.

I've changed the lead to describe this as a "humorous encounter" between the two incarnations.  The style is very light and the script is full of in-jokes about desktop themes, Delgado's and Ainley's beard, Time Lords in silly hats and (of course) fan groups.  --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However that should not be equated to mean "non-canonical". Love & Monsters is just as light hearted and in-joke filled but last I checked it's still considered official canon. Unless Davies or the BBC say otherwise, this shouldn't be used to suggest Time Crash isn't canon, either, unless something occurs at the start of Voyage of the Damned to directly render it moot. 23skidoo (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say it was "non-canonical".  Much of Doctor Who is light-hearted and it's all the better for it.  In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that latterday imported terms like "canon" do not belong in discussions of Doctor Who, but that's another matter. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone tries to source the Fifth Doctor's placement with DWM 390, then revert.  It does not state the position of this story, it merely gives a suggestion as to where it takes palce. StuartDD contributions 11:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We know know from numerous trailers and interviews that it's not the RMS Titanic, but a spacefaring replica. (I think RTD actually used the word replica in an interview, but I don't feel like searching for that tonight.)  The lifebelt merely says Titanic, not RMS.  If we don't want to say spaceship here, that's fine, but it definitely should not say RMS as there is no evidence in either Time Crash or recent VotD publicity that "RMS" applies.  It's a ship called the Titanic.  That's all the Doctor knows at that moment.  Let's leave it at that! --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two logical approaches to the issue of the beard statement:
- One, the the 'beard/wife' reference was completely obvious, and no more original research than 'Apples are often red', whereupon the link is completely relevant, as is the explanation of why there is a link.
- Two, the 'beard/wife' reference cannot, without further citation, be taken as a reference insinuating the Master is homosexual. If so, there is no reason to link the word wife, or even to include it, as it must thereby be assumed that the statement was a nonsequitur. To link the word 'wife' to the gay slang for a woman married by a homosexual man to hide his homosexuality is to imply, via a link, that this is the meaning implied, and is the exact same original research you have claimed. Using links to insinuate OR or POV is equally a violation of Wikipedia guidelines.
Moreover, insinuating that my edits to insure consistency in this article were made to illustrate a point is offencive. You owe me an apology. You seem to have apparently claimed 'ownership' of this article and by force of your own perseverance attempted to fully bypass the intent and spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative environment. Howeverm you cannot have things both ways. As you have misinterpreted my attempts to imprive this article in however small a way as 'disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point', I will refrain from presenting my own interpretation of your continually reverting everything you see by me in this article as your own attempt to disrupt Wikipedia (and it's collaborative nature) simply to prove a point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.20.98 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 

And once again, I have reverted you, simply because you last edits were disruptive, and made purely to make a point. The joke in itself is self explainatory, and does not need expansion other then a link for those that really don't get it. Adding a comment that it "insinuates that the Master is gay" however, is original research. Remember that Wikipedia deals in facts, not theories. Everything in that article is fact. First you add original research, then you removed facts. That is why I reverted. This should in no way be taken as an insult in any way. I have explained multiple times why I have reverted your edits. The best thing you can do is read up on the original research policy, and then you will understand why I have reverted you.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the Wikilink aids the reader in understanding the joke, while not drawing a conclusion about what the Doctor means by it. There is at least one other reasonable interpretation, that Lucy is a cover for Saxon (the Master) being an alien with a fictional past rather than a disguise for his sexuality. Since there is no citable reference to guide us to one interpretation or the other, it would be OR to mention either of them. --Karen | Talk | contribs 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
However, by the time of The Last of the Time Lords it was totally irrelevant whether The Master was, in fact, an alien, therefore there was no reason for him to continue disguising himself. 65.87.20.98 should not have removed the rest of the quite, but removing the link was totally appropriate. "bypassing" wikipedia policy by "sneaking things in" through links is actually, IMO, more wrong than directly violating them.Dodger (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Has anybody actually looked to see if they can find a citation? A comment in a review or a passing remark by Russell T. Davies? Anything? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Since Steven Moffat wrote the scene, he'd be the one to say something. The closest I've found is this:[1] (Doctor Who Forum/registration required):
"While the Ninth Doctor recalls his experience of meeting the Tenth Doctor as the Fifth Doctor, he has his own internal sense that the Time Lords are all gone versus a brief memory of some jokey remarks made by that skinny fellow."--Steven Moffat
I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the joke in the Time Crash-related issue of DWM.--Karen | Talk | contribs 06:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this anonymous user is right. However, there is no reason to truncate the text of the quote, but making the link is either OR, or it's not, and if it's not, explaining the reason for the link also isn't. I'm going to remove the link but leave the text. The reader may draw his or her own conclusions, but putting in the link indicates an endorsement of the interpretation.  Dodger (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not even disputable, the words have clear meanings. If you wanna get all existentialist, we can start arguing that none of these words have any real meaning without citation, and we'll break the whole article down (although that would be wp:pointy).~ZytheTalk to me! 11:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was just pointed out to me that Time Crash is likely to be the last episode to use the 2005 version of the theme, since a new arrangement was introduced with VOTD. This is worthy of note, so I have added this to the Production section. I think a similar statement might exist in the Last of the Time Lords article, however since T.C. falls into the category of "mini-episode" I think it can be noted here as the last "official" DW production to use the 2005 arrangement. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The most important question is: can you cite this information? We need a reliable and verifiable source to confirm the information, otherwise it cannot go in. Please provide a source (preferably a link, but any news source will do).  — Edokter • Talk •  00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure we have a source for the fact there a new theme tune was used in VOTD somewhere - so that would suffice. (as if that was the first with the new tune, then this is the last with the old tune) StuartDD contributions 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But there's no way of telling if they will continue with the new tune throughout series 4; it might be a one-off change and they might revert back to the old one.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They haven't yet! Blaine Coughlan (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And they won't. The new series uses the new arrangement, so that pretty much confirms that it will continue. 23skidoo (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter Davison's daughter will be appearing or has already appeared in an episode that follows this one. Should that be noted in this article to show the possible reason Peter Davison's Doctor was chosen to be the one the David Tennent's Doctor would meet? - LA @ 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

10th Doctor divided by 2 Doctors equals the 5th Doctor :) - LA
Davison was chosen as he's Tennant's favourite! Digifiend (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the Tenth Doctor's reference to the Fifth Doctor being "my doctor" is a meta-reference. There is a 'citation needed' tag against this.
I don't think a citation is needed, or even possible. The Tenth Doctor's comment is a meta-reference by definition. The phrase "my Doctor" only makes sense in the context of real-world viewing of 'Doctor Who', so the Doctor himself saying it is a clear breaking of the Fourth Wall.
Unless what we need is a citation or cross-reference explaining the origin/meaning of the phrase "my Doctor" in the context of the show? There's a reasonable explanation here, but nothing on Wikipedia itself.
I'm a newbie, so don't want to edit without first getting feedback from others.
CattOfTheGarage (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was really David Tennant speaking, in character. Can't put it in the article though. No sources. Digifiend (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
While not doubt meta-textual in its intention, it doesn't fully break the fourth wall: it's simply Ten saying he identifies most with Five out of his various incarnations. That's made pretty obvious by Ten's other comments, so the meta-textual interpretation would require some evidence (in real terms, Tennant's Doctor being Davison is enough, in Wikipedia terms, a stronger citation would be needed).  --Kiarboz (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find a definitive statement from Tennant saying that Davison was his Doctor in any case. Lots of people say he said it, but I can't track down an actual quote.
CattOfTheGarage (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This is obviously a meta-reference. The fact that Tennant - as an individual - may not have considered him "his doctor" is irrelevant. The scene is obvious written by the BBC crew just like any other story they film. --131.227.208.101 (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The wiki page for the Tardis states that the interior is a separate dimension from the outside - so how does the bow of the Titanic break through into the control room? (especially as the next episode shows the 'exterior dimension' of the Tardis with the Titanic)
JaffaCakeLover (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Time Crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Looking good :) Here are a few suggestions:

After the Tenth Doctor (David Tennant) parts ways to Martha (Freema Agyeman) - "parts ways with", "parts ways from"? "To" doesn't really make sense to me, unless he's parting with/from someone else to go to her.
I was always trying to be old and grumpy and important — like you do- shouldn't be spaces before/after the emdash.
The quote is from the Tenth Doctor, but when he puts on his "glasses" it's linked to the Fifth Doctor's appearance. Is he wearing the Fifth's glasses, or what?
We don't really need to re-link TARDIS in the final Plot paragraph.
Calls also peaked during the episode's airing - which calls? Explain so dummies like myself don't have to go read the cited article ;)
Unitalicise TV Squad.
Again Image:Time Crash.jpg is a little over the low-resolution standards, but only by a bit so it's not too big a deal if you can't scale it down a little.
That's it - the article will be on hold for a week so good luck with the changes. —97198 (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, and as fast as Spheres ;) Sceptre (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. I'll jump to it and pass the GAN. —97198 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)