# Talk:School Reunion (Doctor Who)

{{spoiler}}
The Sun is reporting that K-9 is destroyed at the end of the story.  Two questions:

Would a potential spoiler rumor be appropriate for this page?
Since it's The Sun, should we care? :)
Should we put pictures up from the trailer at the end of christmas invasion?
--Jay (Histrion) 15:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, The Sun was right about K-9 being there in the first place, and it's buzzing about OG at the moment, so we should add it, with the spoiler warning. Sean 21:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

in the future how bout you add a spoiler tag before giving away plot details on a talk page--172.144.204.183 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody wikilink the Krillitane bit to any info about them? JQF 18:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It will probably added to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens after the episode is broadcast. Tim! (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, what Tim said.  Right now, though, we know so very little about them that there's not much point in adding them until we've got more info.  (We've got some likely-sounding speculation about their relationship to Anthony Head's character, but nothing concrete, really.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, during the "Coming Soon" trailers, several prominent (and bizarre) posters, all of which read "Eat More Chips!", something which no normal school would ever say (especially after Jamie's School Dinners)! Could this be related to the RTD quote? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking, but Davies probably wouldn't have mentioned it if it was a major part of the plot, and furthermore, these alien teacher people might not have a perfect idea of human life (or more likely, they might have a better one than most adults), or it might be the traditional Hansel and Gretel story (although that would bring school dinners into it), but still, you certainly make a great point. ☺ -- The pathetic APclark Be nice not nasty 20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, t'looks like I was a bit wrong - chips, brain power, wow.
Incidently, there's a very nice (if rather massive) "Eat More Chips" poster at http://www.deffryvaleschool.org.uk/images/chips-poster.jpg. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Jamie's School Dinners: the website for the school states "We didn't need a TV Chef to tell us what to do in our canteen". --Islomaniac 973 17:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The trailers also reminded me quite a bit of Dark Season, RTD's first tv show (which scared the living daylights out of me at the time).  Morwen - Talk 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too. If the stuff with the computers turns out in the episode to be as it seems in the trailers, it will definitely be worth a note. It's also got apparent similarities with the plot of the Demon Headmaster story The Prime Minister's Brain. —Whouk (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The website deffryvaleschool.org.uk is now active, none of the others listed are. --Grand Edgemaster Talk 18:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

DeffryVale.co.uk/index is working, but if you just leave it at .co.uk, it shows up as a holding page.  Also, there are two websites linked from the Deffry Vale site and from the High School site to Cheapserve pages - one for the suspicious teacher Mr. Parsons, and one for somebody who's ostensibly a pupil at Deffry Vale High.  The Sarah Jane Smith site doesn't seem to exist; there's not even a holding page.
http://www.cheapserve.co.uk/members/09032/
http://www.cheapserve.co.uk/members/7974/

There is also a secret page, which just contains the Paradigm Stasis CGI, at http://www.cheapserve.co.uk/members/236801/ (a reference to 23 6 801). (There are also some unrelated pages, left over from when Cheapsave was a front for the infamous Jamie Kane game). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

what was answer for going faster than light? I had difficulty getting the english there

"By a quantum tunnel with an FTL factor of 36.7 recurring." -UK-Logician-2006 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a sitcom. I think the article should state 'cooks', as dinner ladies (two words, take note, Victoria Wood) are the ladies who supervise children during play time and lunch time. DavidFarmbrough 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not in any school I went to. PeteVerdon 11:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll be redoing the plot once I see the actual episode, as usual. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Could I just say that you shouldn't really "redo" the plot, especially on a regular basis. People have worked hard to do it, and as you did with Tooth and Claw, you completely decimate what's been done before. Why not let other people have a go, and you just change individual sentences, like I do, for a change?--Keycard (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I retain as much of it as I can, and rewrite it for better flow. When recapping a story, these kinds of adjustments have to be made or it winds up a patchwork, unaesthetic piece of text, which reads badly and therefore fights with the reader for comprehension. Ultimately, what's important is the substance of it rather than the form — there is no property in my edits, or in anyone else's: you're free to add, correct, rewrite it as long as it improves the article or fits together. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[1] In the space of three edits. I rest my case.--Keycard (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And you're saying that what I did wasn't an improvement over what was there before? I leave it for others to judge. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
From a casual reader's point of view, it is an improvement. From the contributors' points of view, it's not because it mutilates their hard work and effort. And I do know that you're allowed to. I simply say that it's slightly unfair.--Keycard (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it really puts people off contributing when their addition is changed. It often feels it is done for the sake of doing it.--RichardEast 12:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it may be difficult to see text you laboured over being sliced, diced and rearranged.  But it's important to remember that once any of us adds text to a Wikipedia article, it is no longer "ours".  If you scroll down below the input window on any page when you're editing it, you'll see the text:
Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
When anything has multiple authors, as Wikipedia does, the style can quickly become wildly inconsistent, garbled or excessively wordy.  Khaosworks is very good at maintaining a fairly concise "house style" on Wikipedia's Doctor Who articles, and I think most of us appreciate his work.  That doesn't mean that we don't appreciate the contributions of others — we do!  But you shouldn't take editing of your prose as an offence.  It's just the way that Wikipedia works.  Unless somebody takes on the (potentially unpopular) task of redacting articles, they'd eventually become unreadable.  Please assume good faith and don't take it personally.
Also, remember that if you think that any of Khaosworks' edits don't improve the prose, flow or style of an article, you can always edit them back.  He's not the final authority on Doctor Who articles any more than you or I are.  He's just a valued member of the WikiProject, like many of us.  But nobody owns the article, and the important thing is consensus.  As long as we work things out civilly and don't edit war, I'm sure we can find solutions agreeable to everyone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. And I think it's worth reflecting on "From a casual reader's point of view, it is an improvement." Wikipedia exists for readers, not for editors. —Whouk (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Time to re-open this disussion. From WP:DAB: "Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term (some of which might logically utilize said term in a titular fashion). Please use them carefully and only when needed." (emphasis mine).
There is no point in specifying "Doctor Who" in the title as there are no other articles title "School Reunion." If and when those articles are written, that would be the time to disambiguate. Not now. -- MisterHand 04:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree, however the vote above almost unanimously said to keep it as is. God knows why!--Keycard (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
A three to one consensus (one of whom was an anonymous user) is not binding for all time. At the moment it is a bit silly because there is no article on school reunions. When one types School reunion one arrives here because of the redirect. Tim! 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If you go to Red Dwarf (capitalised) you get an article on the sitcom.  If you go to Red dwarf you get an article on the type of star, I believe.  Likewise, if we wanted an article on school reunions in general, we'd surely call it "School reunion", because it isn't a proper noun; this page can just be "School Reunion".
Here [2] is another media entity by the same name.  Someone want to turn School Reunion into a dab page? Morwen - Talk 13:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I've created a dab at School reunion (disambiguation) (School Reunion now redirects there). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Dab pages aren't intended for situations when there's only one article. You folks need to sit down and read WP:DAB carefully and understand the guidelines. -- MisterHand 13:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed it. School reunion is now the dab page, and it points back here and to Class reunion. I believe everything now fits the guidelines. Carry on. -- MisterHand 14:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This expression has cropped up a couple of times in DW articles, but it isn't a standard expression and doesn't even feature in the 'vanilla' wiki entry. So can we stop using it? Its film-buff language. Damiancorrigan 21:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the only short, catchy phrase I know of to refer to a DVD release that doesn't have any/many references.  (Here, it distinguishes from the boxed set whole season release which does have extras/features, but takes a little longer to come out).  I quite like it as terminology - and don't  consider it particularly opaque.  Do you know a better term?  PaulHammond 21:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The term I'm more familiar with is "bare bones DVD". Google search for "Vanilla DVD" brings up 10,600 hits. Google search for "Bare bones DVD" brings up 24,500 hits. -- MisterHand 21:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Bare bones is better. I didn't know what vanilla meant (although I worked it out). Bare bones is more self-explanatory. Damiancorrigan 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Vanilla is wrong because the implication is that a chocolate DVD would be somehow greater rather than different. the value judgement is POV! How about 'plain' DVD or 'basic' DVD? DavidFarmbrough 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Another mention - can an addition be put on Time Wars.
As the Doctor is going back and forth through time, will he not on occasion temporally/temporarily be coexisting with other Time Lords (or Time Ladies)? Jackiespeel 21:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Impossible to add anything into the encyclopedia about this without venturing into original research territory. However, I would venture a guess that since these were Time Wars the time lords (save the doctor) have been wiped from space & time completely. -- MisterHand 22:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Something about this is mentioned in one of the new novels; I think it's 'Stone Rose'. It says that Time Lords have the ability to 'remember' things that have now been changed; a sort of 'meta-time' (my words). Usual caveat about novel canonicity applies. --DudeGalea 06:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The article on Time War (Doctor Who) ventures that any meeting with another Time Lord would potentially cause a paradox and summon the reapers. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I imagine that the intention is that the Time Lords have gone the way of the Cathedral of Chalesm in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But any such speculation without source delves into NOR territory. --DudeGalea 07:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's likely along the lines of the the same explanation as Lance Parkin came up with in The Gallifrey Chronicles — that when Gallifrey is destroyed (as it was in The Ancestor Cell), an event horizon in relative time is created that prevents anyone from Gallifrey's past interacting with the future beyond its destruction and vice versa. But this is again, as mentioned, venturing into OR territory. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some knowledge that there were other Time Lords for "a random person/alien" to know that there is only one left.
I was pointing out that there was the possibilitiy of an anomaly - and I am not a Dr Who buff. Jackiespeel 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the idea of the Time Lords' memories being different works here, as other people have remaked on his being the last of his race. It is simply an idea which hasn't been thought through by thr production team. DavidFarmbrough 12:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
We can deduce from this episode and S1 Dalek that Gallifrey's/Time Lords' end is prior to these two series/our present, but the Time Lords will appear from that planet's past at various points after the planet/their ending. Jack Harkness might just be more aware of his group - and as he meets Rose, who is not a Time Lord/Lady he may jump to conclusions.
I was pointing out a plot hole (for fanfic writers) rather than requesting original research (g).
Jackiespeel 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the following from the Notes section:

In a few scenes when Sarah Jane is talking to the Doctor, they use -very- subtle photoshopping to transfer the impression of Tom Baker's face over the top of Tennant's. This is most obvious in the closing scene. But still hard to actually define - best to just watch the facial wrinkles if you want to see it.
We'll definitely need a source for this one. There's no mention of this in either the "Confidential" ep or the commentary. -- MisterHand 22:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see this effect at all. --DudeGalea 14:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
To the person who added this note: what are your drugs called and where can I get some? Damiancorrigan 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think whoever it was just can't accept that David Tennant is a good enough actor to be channeling Tom Baker (which I maintain he was, and intentionally so: there are moments where he's very Fourth Doctor-ish, in his stance, the way he spoke, and especially in the grinning). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I reckon it was the guy off Dead Ringers playing them both at the same time. He's a clever bloke, you know. Damiancorrigan 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If they had done this, they would have mentioned it in the commentary. IMO Tennant gives one of his best performances in this episode. DavidFarmbrough 11:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be the Bad Wolf of this series (appearing on a computer screen) - is someone doing an equivalent list. Is K-9 going to resurface?  Jackiespeel 21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of torchwood references is being maintained here: Torchwood. -- MisterHand 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems weird in the Christmas Invasion the Prime Minister wasn't even supposed to know about it, but in this episode the name pops up on the screen. Since Christmas Invasion and School Reunion has Torchwood become official? (UNIT would have been better.) --RichardEast 12:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that K-9 Mark III was ever a companion of the Doctor. Unlike Mark I or Mark II, Mark III was never featured in any official Doctor Who story, with exception of "The Five Doctors" and the spin-off (pilot), K-9 and company. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to call him a companion of Sarah Jane Smith, which means that Mark III is not the fifth companion to die (BTW, I do count one story characters like Sara Kingdom and Grace Holloway as companions). What are everyone's thoughts? (Deej30 00:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

It depends on your definition of "companion", but I think you are probably right. You could stretch a point and say that he was a companion in this episode, or that because he referred to the Doctor as 'Master' this model must have interacted with the Doctor previously. It could be argued that K-9 Mark III travelled with the Doctor when he dropped him off in the crate at Sarah's Croydon residence. DavidFarmbrough 11:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that, as a general audience kind of thing, people don't really distinguish between K-9 Marks I, II or III, so when K-9 appears, "Oh, it's K-9 Mark III, he was never a companion," it's "K-9!!". That being said, the pedant in me agrees with Deej and will not object if the note is either modified severely or (more likely) removed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I did say that I do accept one story companions, like Sara Kingdom and Grace, as official companions. I guest if you put K-9 Mark III in the context of being a companion of the Doctor for just this story, then I would say let the note stay. However, if the note is edited, then some reference would need to be made that K-9 Mark III travelled with the Doctor when he dropped him off in the crate at Sarah's Croydon residence (seeing that School Reunion now establishes this as a fact) and also include Mark III's reference of the Doctor as his "Master." I think it would be necessary to include these edits in order to to distinguish K-9 as a companion verses a regular guest star. (Deej30 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm too young to have seen K9 before School Reunion, but it seemed that when he was rebuilt at the end he remembered Sarah, which means that at least some part of his hard drive was saved. I think K-9 is one companion, who may have a new body occasionally, but I don't think you can count him as multiple entities. Damiancorrigan 13:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Is K-9 regarded as being alive? If not, doesn't that make it hardware and therefore not actually a companion but a useful tool like the sonic screwdriver? Marky1981 14:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Johnny 5 is ALIVE, K-9 must be too. Damiancorrigan 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of grounds to debate that Mark III and Mark IV are perhaps the same entity, meaning that Mark IV is a re-fit of MArk III. However, the same can not be sai of Mark I or Mark II. Mark I was created or acquired by Prof. Marinus (from 'The Invisible Enemy') long before he met the Doctor and he departed with Leela at the end of Invasion of Time. Mark II was assembled by the Fourth Doctor between the end of Invasion of Time and the beginning of The Ribos Operation and he left the series when Romana left the Doctor to remain in E-Space (another universe) at the end of 'Warrior's Gate.' 
In short, I don't believe in the "one K-9 companion" theory. If Leela remained on Gallifery, and Mark I stayed with her, then he was probably destroyed in the Time War. Further, Mark II as far as we know is still in E-Space with Romana (according to the official televised stories and not recognizing the spin-off media accounts), because he was severally damaged and could only be repaired and function in E-Space. Moreover, at the beginning of Full Circle, the Doctor even tells Mark II "K-9 you can meet your twin" when he thought that they had returned to Gallifrey. There is too much evidence to suggest that Mark I and Mark II are not the same as Mark III or IV. The only way that this theory could be true is if all K-9's share the same consciousness and are connected some how in a manner like the "Borg Collective" (I apologize to anyone who might be offended by me using a Star Trek term in a Doctor Who disscussion board). However, there is no detailed evidence to support the Borg theory. (Deej30 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

I added a couple of details about the abortive Krillitane attack outside the cafe. In case anyone wonders why the details are there, the exact reason why the Krillitane doesn't attack them is never explained, but isn't hard to work out once you notice that the Doctor raises his hand against it, which is the same hand that was dipped in the Krillitane oil earlier. This conclusion is too speculative, in my view, for me to be comfortable putting it in a note, so I put in those details so people can work it out for themselves. I welcome alternative suggestions. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen was twenty-seven years old when she appeared in Pyramids of Mars in 1975.  However she said she was "from 1980", which would suggest a date of birth for Sarah of around 1953, which in turn suggests that the Sarah who appears in School Reunion (which we assume takes place in 2006 until someone checks the car tax discs) appears to be only about fifty-three! Unless of course Sarah gives her age at any time during the third and fourth Doctors' eras, which I don't think she does. DavidFarmbrough 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't she have 1974 car tax discs in Planet of the Spiders, though? :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This wouldn't contradict her being from 1980, if six years had passed between Spiders and Pyramids. DavidFarmbrough 16:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, the can of worms that opens... where precisely would the six-year gap take place, considering Robot follows Spiders and begins an arc that stretches all the way up to Zygons? Sarah hitches a ride with the Doctor at the end of that, and she complains about his promise to get her back to London five minutes before they left in Planet of Evil, so no gap there either. In Pyramids of Mars, where she says 1980 they're still trying to get back to UNIT. So unless they've spent six years trying to get back to UNIT between Planet of Evil and Pyramids... but then, why would Sarah say she's from 1980 since she left Earth in 1975, tops? I have my own preferred explanation, but that would require quite massive contortions. I leave this exercise to others to figure out an explanation that satisfies them personally. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Sladen was born in '48, so I don't think there is much of a discrepancy. She looked pretty fine in my opinion! Damiancorrigan 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Slight tangent, but the series—if it's being self-consistent—must now be in 2007. It started in 2005 in synch with the 'real' world. Then there was a one-year gap (when Rose went 'missing'), so they were then in 2006. Christmas Invasion was, therefore, Christmas 2006 (i.e. the xmas we're going to have this year). So they're now in 2007. But I'm not sure how seriously they're taking this. :-) --DudeGalea 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, it was never officially claimed that it was in sync with the real world. On the other hand, the presence of Routefinder buses (I forget in which episode they appeared - Christmas perhaps?) and not on the special heritage routes they still run on, means that it was set earlier than present day. Damiancorrigan 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no confirmation in dialogue, but posters visible in Aliens of London say that Rose was last seen March 6, 2005.  Routefinder buses are visible in "Rose", even though they had been taken out of service before then.  So, in the grand Doctor Who dating tradition, the evidence is equivocal. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion, FWIW, is that physical stuff (like the Routefinder bus thing) doesn't matter, because Who is firmly in a different reality from ours anyway. What's one more little difference? But an actual date in figures is definite. However, I think the makers should also feel free to let the history 'slide' a bit where they feel it's necessary. I seem to recall that the dating of the UNIT episodes in the 70s caused a great deal of debate, as they're not self-consistent. Dramatic license, and all that. --DudeGalea 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What, the UNIT dating controversy? Merely a trifle. ;) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Not going to further the can of worms, but hopefully assist - any one able to go to Sarah Jane Chronicles and get the info when she goes to see herself as a bay - think its 1954? there are definitely dates mentioned etc.
Hopefully this helps
Crescent (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the equation was the "stasis paradigm" — the implication being that anyone who had mastered the equation would be able to put the cosmos into stasis and change whatever they wanted to.  A bit like the ability of the Key to Time to "stop everything".   What's the source for "Skasis"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's off the BBC website, I believe. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, on the photos of the episode's making, there's one caption saying filming the Skasis Paradigm. See here.--Keycard (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So it is.  Thanks.  Ah, well.  I now know how my wife felt when she found out that the thing that controlled the Autons wasn't called the "Nesting Consciousness" — the mistake sounded so much cooler! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference to this quote from An Unearthly Child in this story. The Doctor says he is called John Smith and someone (I think Anthony Head) says that that is a common name for an uncommon man. Can anyone who has watched it more times than I remember the quote and who said it please? DavidFarmbrough 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the conversation between the Doctor and Sarah. From memory: the Doctor introduces himself as John Smith - Sarah says she knew someone who went by the name. The Doctor shrugs it off by saying it's a common name and she replies that he was a very uncommon man. So, not quite the same, and I think it's probably just a coincidence. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I should also note here that "John Smith" was the alias the Doctor, in his third incarnation, used while he was restricted to Earth; at that time he worked as an advisor to UNIT. "John Smith" wasn't used in An Unearthly Child; the name of the owner of the junkyard wherein the TARDIS stood was I. M. Freeman. --Joe Sewell 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually no.  The sign reads: I. M. Foreman.  ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's possible it was a coincidence but with the school setting and the use of the words "uncommon man", I think it was intentional. Yes I did realise that Jon Pertwee's Doctor used that alias. Troughton's did too! The An Unearthly Child reference is that Ian and Susan talk about a group called John Smith And The Common Men. DavidFarmbrough 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Aliens and Enemies, the phrase is actually spelt as above, and not as it was on the official website (and subtitles, possibly - I don't know). Which should be featured on the page?--Keycard (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why were all the Computers wired into the same Electrical Plug? Did my Father do the wiring as he used to do stupid things like Wiring all the electrical in his living room into the same socket!
Because of the Krillitanes' MAGIC PLUG ABILITIES.

I recently added Elizabeth Sladen as Sarah Jane Smith and K9 to the companions list in the summary box, only for it to be removed. What do we think? Should they be included as companions? Personally I think that if they are not included, Mickey Smith should not be either, as although he featured prominently in this episode, he was not made an official companion until the end of the episode, and then travelled with the Doctor and Rose for the first time in the following episode, 'The Girl In The Fireplace'. Catalina 123 22:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As the "remover" (grin), I based the change in part on the first paragraph, which only describes Mickey as becoming a companion. I've also never seen any reference to SJS as a companion in the context of the new series. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is best to leave it as it is, then. I also have my doubts as to whether or not Adam can be considered a companion for the 2005 episode 'Dalek'. Catalina 123 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I also have removed them a time or two. They simply aren't companions as they do not travel with the Doctor in the TARDIS at the beginning or the end of the episode. It should be noted that K9 Mk III is never seen traveling in the TARDIS at anytime. The box that he is delivered to Sarah in at the start of "K9 and Company" has a note from the Doctor on it but, as we don't see him drop the box off, it could have actually been delivered by someone else. The sticky situation of "is someone a companion during the entire time if the story that they are introduced in or only at the end of it when they leave in the TARDIS with the Dr?" comes up time and again. Steven, Polly, Ben, Jamie and so on up to Adam and Mickey don't actually become companions until the end of their stories but I can understand those that feel that they should be counted since they are a major part of some or all of the episodes of the stories that they are introduced in. Dodo on the other hand is only in the last couple of minutes of The Massacre... and its hard to justify saying that she is a companion in that story. In conclusion I would agree both of the editors Ckatz and Catalina123 that Sarah should not be included as a companion (in the same way that Harry isn't a companion in The Android Invasion) in this story. MarnetteD | Talk 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It is also debatable, I think, whether or not Captain Jack Harkness can be considered a companion for "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances". Whilst he plays a significant role, he doesn't actually join the TARDIS crew until the very end of "The Doctor Dances". Catalina 123 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Sarah Jane should be added to be a companion, since it is the same continuity and she was a companion, so she still is, regadless if she enters the TARDIS or not. As for Mickey Smith, he escaped the lair of the Nestene Conciousness by TARDIS travel in 'Rose', so is he a companion in this episode? Answer is no, because the Doctor doesn't see him as a companion. Neither other guests companions, like the family the doctor rescues in 'Fires of Pompeij'. Mickey was offered companionship in the end of 'World War III', he refuses then. But this clearly states that he is a companion from this point on, accepted by the Doctor. So, not traveling in the TARDIS should not be a reason to exclude SJS or K-9 since the Doctor sees them as companions (besindes, K-9 was most likely not manufactured in our time, so TARDIS-travel is the most likly scenario for him coming into SJS's posession, but that's just a site note).Heinrich k (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Companions are those that are invited by the Doctor to travel in the TARDIS, so incidental trips don't count (like Jackie in "Army of Ghosts"). Sarah Jane left the TRADIS a long time ago, so she is no longer a companion here.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, she specifically choses to not be a companion again at the end of the episode. MarnetteD | Talk 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of February 13, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lead section require work per WP:Lead. References are required in the lead section as well as a less ambigous plot summary
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Image required fair use rationale but completed by reviwer.
If these changes are made in the next seven days article should be able to be promoted.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some work on the lead section, but haven't put any references in as it's referenced in the article below (which is what it says in WP:LEAD#Citations). Will (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the lead section. I've added a reference for the original airdate as this information is not repeated and does need verifying and will now promote article. Million_Moments (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (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 13, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, appropriate length plot summary, good lead summary.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass, outlines plot, production and reception
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Appropriate image to illustrate article
Good article. Further work could include expansion of the production section of the article should more material be availible to do so.  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) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit in the continuity section about the Doctor's comment about having regenerated 6 times since he last met Sarah instead of 5, and the Doctor mentioning that human's weren't allowed on Gallifrey possibly being related to Romana wanting non-Gallifreyans to be allowed to enter the Academy in the Gallifrey audio series. It was removed with this comment: "speculative fancruft - this is great for blogs or fan pages but not an encyclopedia also remember that books and radio plays are not canonical for all".
How was that any more crufty than quite a lot of information on Doctor Who-related articles? It's an observation on an error or oversight in continuity. The Gallifrey reference may have been a bit speculative but why remove the mention of the contradiction in continuity?--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth-1-Fifth-2-Sixth-3-Seventh-4-Eighth-5-Ninth-6-Tenth.  Half a dozen times. DonQuixote (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is a lot of other fancruft that needs removing, but, that is not a reason to put more in. The whole edit also has problems of being Original Research because it is your "observation" tieing together all of these desparate elements. Other fans might take all of these and come up with a different conclusion. The books and audio plays are not considered canonical by a number of fans and the MoS for the Doctor Who wikiproject mentions this. Please be aware that there is a Doctor Who wiki that is linked at the bottom of each article where this kind of speculation can be posted without having to live up to the standards of an encyclopedia. MarnetteD | Talk 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sarah met the Fifth Doctor in The Five Doctors. Five regenerations. Five times.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've admitted that the Gallifrey link was stretching it a bit, but the one about the number of regenerations is more valid.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
She didn't know it was the Fifth Doctor.  — Edokter • Talk •  16:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For this episode and his subsequent 3 appearances, Mickey is listed in the infoxes as "Companion" (which I agree with). However, this subsection is under the main section of "Starring", which Noel Clarke does not do for any of his appearances. I would remove him from that section, but I don't know how to have him as both a Companion and as a guest star. Any thoughts? Ophois (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox has been changed to "Cast".  — Edokter • Talk •  11:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks! Ophois (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Rose is credited as a companion in "Turn Left" without fulfilling the role as a companion, and since Sarah Jane is credited as a companion in "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End" also without fulfilling the role of companion, shouldn't she be labelled as a companion in this episode? Ophois (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if I was the only one who noticed that around the 36:20 minute mark, when all the kids are being released from the computers, there's a shot where they're all wearing headphones, and then a cut, then the next shot, they're all without headphones (and starting to move away from the desks). Now I know they've been made much smarter by the oil, but am wondering whether that adequately explains mass headphone removal?
DebF  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.156.155 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 

So, I bought the book “Doctor Who: The Essential Guide - Twelfth Doctor Edition”, on page 167 where it lists some of the Tenth Doctor companions it explicitly states that both Sarah Jane and K9 are companions in this story. Can we reach a consensus please?--82.132.246.251 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)