Talk:Utopia (Doctor Who)

message: Please can we remain calm in the rush to edit the article and do it properly (ie correct spellings, punctuations and so on). Also there has been no mention of Saxon until the trailer for next week's episode so it doesn't need a major mention until the end of the article.
Also feel free to post in here first to build a consensus, I'm guessing there are a few conflicts at the moment.AlanD 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: *I think we should include some reference to the fact we will find out what happened to Jack at the end of Torchwood as we know there will have to be a partial explination at least. Walters1 09:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *There's a note from Russel T. Davies in the latest DWM saying that Jack will simply 'appear' in the TARDIS ('like a conquering hero') and Torchwood itself will not be heavily mentioned, if at all. How he got into the TARDIS itself may well be discussed, of course. Radagast 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Torchwood

message: *Captain Jack was last seen at the end of the Torchwood episode End of Days looking off-screen while the familiar sounds of a TARDIS are heard in the background.
Should be removed, as there is no explination of how this relates to the continuity of the episode?
But it expains how he turned up in Cardiff, he was left on the gamestation at the end of parting of the ways.
:Please start all responses with an indent (sentence above) and please sign all posts with four tildes. Just because one person hasn't signed their post, doesn't mean you all don't have to - Weebiloobil 20:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuity

message: "Utopia is also the name of a short trips story featuring the Seventh Doctor." I think explanation or link to what short trips is would be useful. Otherwise it makes no sense.
220.237.81.74 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it also be worth mentioning in the Trivia section that Ace used to refer to the Seventh Doctor as (the) "Professor"?--Crushtor 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Short story "Utopia"

message: What is our reason to believe that Derek Jacobi's character shows up in this episode as opposed to The Sound of Drums?  The Daily Mirror story merely says "toward the end of the series", and the official site's story doesn't say anything about which story he's in (except that he's "caught in a desperate bid to save the human race").  Was he seen in filming for this episode or something? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobi in this ep? 

message: Tennant and Jacobi are not wearing the same outfit at all, and the Tennant scene is almost certainly from Human Nature/The Family of Blood, a story in which The Doctor believes he's someone else, and which is set in a period which matches the Doctor's outfit. Kelvingreen 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia: I am NOT The Doctor 

message: The article, in the published rumours section, says this:
The Sun has reported that the Professor (Sir Derek Jacobi) is the Master in disguise, and that this will be revealed when he regenerates. The Sun has also reported that John Simm (who is in the succeeding two episodes) will be playing the Master.
Whilst this could very well be true, it should really be accompanied by a note stressing that this is only a rumour. The article makes it sound very much like this is true. Perhaps a note such as, 'However, this has not been verified by the production team. The Sun has been known to get such rumours wrong in the past.', would do? - Weebiloobil 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sun cannot be considered as a reliable publication. American contributors on DW pages might not understand the populist nature of British tabloids, which are generally derided as sensationalist drivel by anyone interested in serious research.  The Sun will pedal rumours because they sell papers, not because they are true.  Some inevitably are (can't be wrong all the time), but better to wait for a reliable publication such as Radio Times or one of the broadsheets.Gwinva 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Sun claimed that the Professor would reveal himself to be the Master when he regenerated. It turned out to be a little more complicated than that. Gallifreyan Summoner 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours 

message: "This episode also sees the return of a monster from the Patrick Troughton era. Many believe it to be the Macra." Says who? This needs citation  (Black Dalek 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have mentioned in the discussion for The Lazerus Experiment, the Macra did appear in Gridlock. The BBCi trailer apparently (I managed to miss it :( ) features a scene of a giant crab (what the Macra look like in Gridlock) next to what looks like the deaging device from The Lazerus Experiment. If it is the Macra, and the deaging device, the scene could feasibly be from this episode, as this episode is set in the same time as The Lazerus Experiment. (Whoops, maybe it's not. However, there are certain speculations about a Mr. Saxon, so I might be right after all). Nevertheless, it is just speculation - Weebiloobil 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you see "many believe..." or "some say..." and its companion "while others..." in a Wikipedia article, please remove the silly thing in its entirety.  Such vague weaseling is not appropriate to Wikipedia.  Make the editor who inserted the claim source it properly. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citiation

message: The doctor says that the rift has been active, does this not make reference to The last 2 Torchwoods of series 1
Actually the entire series. 82.32.48.236 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but mostly the last two episodes, in which the rift was especially active.  (This is me straining not to insert massive speculation to Talk page based on the clip!) ;) -- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rift 

message: Remove 'subscript text' below the tags, is ugly. Riana ⁂ 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And edit according to the consensus of the topic above.--Rambutan (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand either editprotected request. Also, this page was just protected; it could probably use a little cool-off period. If there are specific problems that can be easily address (e.g., typo fixes, etc.), please feel free to re-enable the editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protected request 

message: Just realised that ref 4 can be used to cover rene zagger's apperence in this ep. Could admin update it please. Also, you might want to change the companion format in the infobox to match prevous episodes. Thanks Willow177 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Can we change the opening word Utopia to "Utopia" as it's an episode not as serial.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another request: The John Bell listed in the cast is a different one to John Bell (actor). Can someone please remove the link? --OZOO (vote saxon) 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protected

message: Could someone maybe grab an image from last night's trailer? Then all the hundreds of those arguing against consensus (Matthew) will be happy.--Rambutan (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: Citations for all the actors appearing in this episode are found in DWM 383.
"A Doctor Who Special of Blue Peter will be shown on Wednesday 13th June 2007": cite for this is DWA 31
:I don't understand this request. Could you please clarify? Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection has been lifted. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  actor cites 

message: Can this be semi-protected instead of fully protected? Also, can someone italicise "Blue Peter"? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could probably be unprotected if users agreed to stop inserting NFCC violations. Matthew 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I've requested semi-protection; Will, thanks for reverting: I'm close to 3RR!--Rambutan (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [update] Request denied, I've tried further explanation. What will happen, I don't know.--Rambutan (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your request was abusive.  Semi-protection is not for gaining the upper hand in an edit war.  81.104.175.145 11:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not abusive, "abusive" means rude comments about you. I didn't use it for that, I used it to support consensus. Anyway, it's over now, so drop it.--Rambutan (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an abusive request.  You specifically requested semi-protection, in the knowledge that it would stop me from editing and not you.  That's an abuse of process.  81.104.175.145 11:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because an IP was not following consensus. If I wasn't consensus and Khaosworks kept reverting, I think Khaosworks would be quite right to protect the page. Will (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the case if there were actually a consensus.  There is no consensus here.  Anyone who thinks their is is deluded.  81.104.175.145 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Folks - how about discussing the article now & your differences, rather than focussing on RPP reports? - Alison ☺ 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's to discuss?  The image fails three WP:NFCC beyond any doubt.  81.104.175.145 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree: in fact, unless 81.104.175.145 has anything else to contribute to the discussion (rather than griping about reasonable measures being taken against him), then the case can be considered closed!--Rambutan (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not reasonable.  WP:PROT: Semi-protection should not be used ... in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users.  81.104.175.145 11:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not remotely interested. If you've got a problem, report it here. Leave us alone!--Rambutan (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that this has now been reported to WP:AN/FURG by the anon editor, so folks can weigh in over there if they like - Alison ☺ 11:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for telling us, but I give up, I'm going to go and eat some lunch.--Rambutan (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: The following summary appeared on the official BBC Youtube channel for a day or so on their Utopia trailer. It has since been edited but several people/websites have noted the original version:
The TARDIS propels itself to the end of the Universe where they encounter the Futurekind, a wild race that hunts humans for food.  After a narrow escape the Doctor, Martha and Captain Jack  find themselves in Silo 16 where Professor Yana is building a rocket  for the remaining humans to escape to a distant Utopia.
There are some who say the name "Yana" is very significant for reasons I won't immediately point out as it is perhaps spoilerific.  TaraLivesOn 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd need to cite either BBC or Outpost Gallifrey for that, though. Will (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction: You need to cite a verifiable source. Matthew 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of which the only two verfiable sources are BBC press releases and Outpost Gallifrey, so I pretty much was right. Will (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is OG reliable?--Rambutan (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OG is pretty much reliable, yes. I can't think of a time when they've been wrong. We could lump in A Brief History of Time (Travel), but that's more production than news. Will (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...-Rambutan (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SHould we put in that it is set in the year 100trillion where time lords havent been before from the trailers?86.136.3.193 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way "Silo 16" is now confirmed as it can be clearly seen in one of the publicity photos for this episode. --TaraLivesOn 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated episode description

message: I was going through and citing this article, but I appear to have removed the reference table. Also, I am tempted to remove the section about the TARDIS refueling, as it seems like speculation. Feedback please Willow177 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cause of the lost refs was a missing " on the Jonathan Ross <ref name="RossClip>.  Fixed.  81.104.175.145 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref links 

message: I cannot find the source of this again so I won't put it in the article but it seems very familiar from the director of Utopia
(SPOILER WARNING)
 "filmed a regeneration, but it's not the Doctors. It's something you really wont expect"  --TaraLivesOn 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get it from if you can't find the source?--Rambutan (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah nevermind me, sorry. It took quite a bit of searching but apparently it was a third hand report from someone saying their friend was told that, LOL. The third person was someone respectable but they didn't quote their source so I thought it was like a magazine. Apparently not. My apologies. --TaraLivesOn 22:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, the appearance of Simm may just be in the trailer. Will (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They didnt announce that the daleks eg. Nicholas Briggs was going to be in doomsday last year. they cant use the cast list to give away the endings. Willow177 11:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but we really don't know yet, not until they tell us officially or we see the episode. As far as we know the surprise could be that Jack is a timelord (I doubt it, especially as Barrowman is in the finale, but we don't know). It won't be clear until it has aired NIKKKIN 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graeme Harper quote 

message: Apparently the "name in credits" quote is from What's On TV not the Radio Times. Its' not in copy of RT, and I had a flick through WoTV in a newsagents and the quote was there so I jotted down the page number and article title... but It seems the "joy to play" and "sad leader" quotes aren't from RT either and I only gave WoTV a cursory glance... are these from there too? --GracieLizzie 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no-one's been able to properly source this (and as it doesn't really add much concrete information to the article), we might as well remove those quotes.  Mark H Wilkinson 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outpost Gallifrey ascribes this quote to the Radio Times:  "It's not the Captain Jack from Torchwood. He's not angsty, he's not moody; he's determined, but in a different way. Captain Jack from Doctor Who is a little more light-hearted, because he’s back where he wants to be. Although he loves the Torchwood team, one of his main objectives over the past couple of years has been to find the Doctor, to figure out why Jack is the way he is. Now he's there, he can let the Doctor take the responsibility for everything and he can sit in the background a bit.", so some of the removed stuff was right.  Don't know if you want it, though. Gwinva 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the sense is the same, yes, though worded differently.  To me it appears more relevant to the characterisation section at Jack Harkness, but people editing that may well be waiting for the episodes to be broadcast.  Mark H Wilkinson 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Barrowman quotes - [[Radio Times]], or [[What's On TV]]? 

message: Can people please note that a line from a children's television presenter may not mean that the production office views Utopia as the first of a three-parter?  Last I checked, DWM still has eps 12 & 13 as a two part story.  That episode 11 leads into this two-parter is neither here nor there unless RTD or someone official says something to that effect. Mark H Wilkinson 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree entirely, and suggest that this page, the episode listings and Master (Doctor Who) are changed back to the original one-parter plus two-parter structure, as consistently indicated in Doctor Who Magazine and I'm sure, intended by Davies.  Utopia has a different director, style, setting and cast (apart from 3 regulars and a guest) from the two-parter.  Unless you want to list Keeper of Traken and Logopolis as a single eight-episode serial for almost-identical reasons.  --87.112.26.139 11:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Doctor Who & three-parters 

message: I think it would be nice if we could keep the plot to the main things: The Master, Captain Jack, Utopia and the regeneration, and so on.  Some of our plot summaries are nothing more than "he did this then she did that and then..." which is painful to read and not very encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get onto it later tonight. Will (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. "Keep it brief" is the key. :) --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! I haven't the episode on hand, so feel free to fix any errors. Will (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: Buried in the haze of noises that Yana hears as he remembers who he is, there seem to be some classic Master quotes. I definitely heard "You will give your power to me," from The Daemons. Anyone able to pick out any more? - Chris McFeely 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not a specific line from any of Ainley's performances. You hear his evil laugh. The creators of this episode must have taken it from a specific moment during his years as the Master but I have not read which episode they took it from. If anyone has read it the it could be added as a sourced edit on the main page. MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master quotes 

message: Matt, you can't just revert. It's there to support WP:MOS, and to stop some of the crap edits that have been pouring in.--Rambutan (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't insert shit within articles, yes I can just revert -- those templates go on talk pages. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Don't assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia, or indeed any website." Matthew 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do try to be civil, Matthew. Phil Sandifer 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling+grammar 

message: Ckatz seems to be debating whether we should link the Master or the Master. I think we should use the former, since it's his name.--Rambutan (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The credits, an authoratitive source, say "the Master", just as they say "the Doctor". On other Master-stories, eg Colony in Space, it's linked including the "the". Why's this any different?--Rambutan (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the credits have also said "Doctor Who" for the Doctor at certain points in the show's history - but we know that the character's name isn't "Doctor Who". We don't use "The Master" or "The Doctor" (capitalized, not including the beginning of sentences), and esthetically, it just looks wrong to link the lower-case "the". I think we have to decide what is the correct form - and then adjust all the articles to match, rather than just using other Master episodes as a template. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chan, my thought is that all the Master episodes have stood like that for a long time, and nobody's complained, tho. He also identified himself as "the Master" to Chantho, so that discounts your quote. It's a grey area, but since "the Doctor" is most commonly referred to as that, I think that the phantom "the" should stay.--Rambutan (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it certainly isn't worth an edit war. Discussion, yes, and I'll agree that it is a grey area. However, if we look at the Wikipedia articles, we rarely see the term "The Doctor" capitalized; it is written as "the Doctor". Furthermore, the main article on the character is located at Doctor (Doctor Who). While Wikipedia article naming conventions avoid using articles such as "The", exceptions are allowed when it is a part of the actual name. One would think that the article would have been located at The Doctor instead. --Ckatzchatspy 08:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about it being capitalised. It shouldn't be capitalised. But, it should be linked, since that's his name, according to other WP articles, the credits, bits of the episodes, various news releases and the official synopsis for LOTTL.--Rambutan (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalization is important, however - if the term isn't capitalized. it becomes debatable as to whether it is actually a part of the name. (Plus, where do the other articles categorically state that the name *is* "the Doctor", rather than just having it written that way? There seems to be a lot of grey as well, with the only definitive part being that "Doctor" is involved.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait for some of the others to voice an opinion, then.--Rambutan (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is best resolved by reference to the programme "You might be a doctor but I am the Doctor.  The definate article you might say" - Tom Baker, Robot.  Seems pretty conclusive to me. The Doctor is only addressed directly as "Doctor", all third person refferences include the definate article.  Ditto with the Master, with the difference that I believe that this is the first time the Doctor has addressed him as such, all previous salutations being variations on "oi you."  MartinMcCann 10:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Rambutan (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: MartinMcCann, thanks for the explanation - but could you please state which one you feel is correct? (Pardon my confusion, but your text could be taken as supporting either format. --Ckatz 21:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I heard Derek Jacobi say "I am...The Master!" and it's beyond dispute that he pronounced the capital T.  Case proven. --Tony Sidaway 20:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's hardly "case proven". If HRH says "I am (pause for dramatic effect) the Queen" - does that mean her name is "The Queen"? --Ckatzchatspy 21:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was kidding.  Derek Jacobi in full flow is quite impressive! --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sheepish grin) Got me... and just as I was about to rephrase. (And yes, it was entertaining!) --Ckatzchatspy 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the point that lack of capitalisation makes it "debatable as to whether it is actually a part of the name" (I think it was Ckatz's point), that's not necessarily true. Neither the Master or the Doctor are human (I know, stating the obvious, stay with me), so it might be probable that their native language isn't a human one (in this case, English), whether they actually understand it themselves or not (and they don't have to). Anyway, the point. Names from other languages don't have to be completely capitalised throughout (usually, I think, due to those parts of their names being, err, "minor" words (such as from)). A few examples: Ludwig van Beethoven, Edwin van der Sar, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Therefore, it could be argued that it isn't necessary for there to be a capital letter for it to be part of the name, in the language they speak (probably), and this is carried across to an English translation.I hope my point's clear enough. And I just realised this is longer than I thought it was, sorry. --81.152.101.219 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems slightly conclusive, then! And, Ckatz, The Queen is HM, not HRH! :-) Rambutan (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Master" or "The Master" 

message: I've been saying "The Master regenerates during the course of the episode, so he is played by two actors" in the lead section, and Sceptre has been removing it.
Maybe we should discuss this.
It seems pretty important to me.  Time Lords seldom regenerate, and when this happens in Doctor Who there are two actors playing the part: one before and one after.  I'd like to know why this keeps being removed from the lead section as "not important enough."   --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Added in, in a slightly easier to read format. Will (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regeneration

message: I think the 'Plot' section for this article needs rewriting - it goes through the story but not in too much detail (it leaves out what the Doctor and Jack talk about when he is in the radiation room which i think is quite important) and i do not like it when it says 'A subplot includes...' as this should just be intergrated into the article as it goes through the story. Could someone please change this? I'd do it myself but i have exams i need to revise for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-m-r-t (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 June 2007
: We don't (or shouldn't) do step-by-step plots .  The out-of-universe style "a subplot includes..." is recommended. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got exams to revise for, what are you doing being on Wikipedia? :P --QUADRATUS (speak to me, human) (yes i've been here) (vote saxon) 17:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Tony's right. Wikipedia's guidelines about writing about fiction do ask that it is out-of-universe, and I've tried to do so as much as I can. Will (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot detail

message: Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, i have an opinion, i think you should get over yourself. So other people are making edits, big deal, just because we're ip's doesn't make us wrong, and yet you revert every edit that you don't like. just because you're a member, doesn't make you better than ip's--81.76.90.123 12:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not very precise "most IP edits ..." and it is original research. >:) --Puppy Zwolle (Puppy) 20:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan-cr*p

message: Is it worth mentioning that this is the first regeneration of a character - other than the Doctor - to be shown on screen?
I know that Romana regenerated in Destiny of the Daleks, but the actual regeneration was not shown on screen - you just saw  her coming in with different bodies.
StuartDD 10:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, mainly because it isn't the first regeneration seen on screen.  Mark H Wilkinson 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other instances include the Doctors mentor, Cho-Je, in Planet of the Spiders, but again off screen. We do see on screen a regeneration in Underworld, where a member of the Minyon crew regenerates using a machine based on timelord technology.  71.145.162.13 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find the K'anpo Cho-Je regeneration takes place on screen. Mark H Wilkinson 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about Master regenerations, I can't remember whether any were shown on screen. The one in the TV movie wasn't a regeneration, it was the masters spirit possessing a human body. So if it is the case, it might be worth mentioning that the master has not been seen regenerating before.--MrClaxson 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Master regenerated on-screen in The Keeper of Traken. ShaleZero 18:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't a regeneration.  It was him taking over someone's body. DonQuixote 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that a)the Ainley Master looks nothing like Tremas and b)that merging looked suspiciously like the Watcher merging with the Doctor in Logopolis, I'd call that a regeneration, albeit an unconventional one.  MartinMcCann 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...no.  a) He looked like a younger Tremas.  b) Non sequitur.  Just because the visuals looked similar doesn't mean that they're the same things. I mean, Meglos controlling the Earthman's body had similar visuals as the Master's "regeneration".  It doesn't necessarily make either one a regeneration.  DonQuixote 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: MartinMcCann, the Ainley Master is supposed to look sufficiently like Tremas to fool Nyssa into thinking he's still her father (cf. Logopolis). Whatever you wish to call it, it's certainly not meant to be Time Lord regeneration. Mark H Wilkinson 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As a slight seqway; would it be worth mentioning that in making the show, Graeme Harper would be the first Director to have done two regenrations from two different stories? He directed "Caves of Androzani". 71.145.162.13 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, unless some reliable and verifiable secondary source says it (such as it being pointed out in a Doctor Who Confidential), then no, we shouldn't put it in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First non-doctor regeneration 

message: From what I understand, there should be three more zeros if we're talking about a British trillion here, which I think we have to assume. Gives us all a bit more hope for the future of the universe, too - I'd like to think it lasts a bit longer!Famico666 14:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Russell is using short scale - i.e. 1 trillion is 1012. Will (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to not use the number at all though, and just use the written 100 trillion - or even one hundred trillion - as the years are in New Earth and Gridlock. Putting both number and words, whether or not it can be shown Russell T. Davies uses short scale (not everyone would know that...), might cause unnecessary confusion. I'd personally say the same goes for The Sound of Drums. --86.130.28.121 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know it's short scale? 138.243.129.136 14:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How many zeros in a trillion?

message: Love and bless them, are the YouTube Whogasm girls worth mentioning in this article?  Mark H Wilkinson 17:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Metro is a category unto itself when you're saying "national, regional, local" - it's "sold" around Britain, but only on specific transport routes (West Yorkshire, Manchester, London, and I think maybe Birmingham). Will (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It does pass the standards of WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Best as a sub-section of this article than a stand-alone, IMHO. -- MisterHand 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Whogasm section was ridiculously large and detailed, so I've trimmed it back and given the section a more encyclopedic name.  --Tony Sidaway 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Notability, the relevant article informs me, is not a temporary commodity.  We do not serve the community by including flash in the pan stories.  Mark H Wilkinson 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Having read the Whogasm part distilled into it's essence, all I can say is "so what?" it's not relevant to the episode or story itself, it is trivia. Which doesn't in my view mean it shouldn't be included, but if it is then where do you draw the line? Jasonfward 13:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it belongs in the article.  If not enough people agree, we wait a couple of weeks and then we'll find that opinions have changed in the direction of removal.  See the recentism essay. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops... didn't realize the discussion was ongoing when I removed the section as per Digby. Kudos to Tony for condensing the material, but I don't think it needs to be in either. Does that seem to be consensus so far, and should we proceed on that basis (i.e. keep it out unless a majority speaks up to put it in?) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 16:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whogasm 

message: It isn't mentioned in the article (and perhaps it shouldn't be since it smacks of OR) but the Master was supposed to have reached the end of his regeneration cycle before the events of The Deadly Assassin, thus the need for him to take over of Tremas' body after failing to gain the Doctor's in The Keeper of Traken. The end of this marvelous (sorry POV I know) episode quite clearly shows him regenerating. Now I don't have access to much of the info that is currently available to you UK wikipedians and it is two months until we will get to hear the commentaries on the DVD. So I have to assume that (like the Doctor's regen from the eighth to the ninth) an untelevised (and unwritten?) tale in which the Master regained a new regen cycle (like the one that was referred to in The Five Doctors) must have occured. Has there been any comment on the net or in Doctor Who Monthly? Any info you can add will be appreciated and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that, since I haven't seen the next two episodes of this continuing story, that this might be explained in one of them so please don't feel the need to post a spoiler here. If, after the next two weeks, it is still left unclear I may come back and ask you again. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia has become an open forum for spoilers since the abandonment of spoiler tags, it probably does no harm to mention in this thread that an answer does sort of appear in The Sound of Drums, though it's more an implication than anything else. 68.146.41.232 02:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Master's Regeneration

message: I noticed that a computer keyboard used had hiragana on them, as well as english letters, just thought this might be worth noting as I don't remember any references to any real languages set this far in the future (50trillion years wasnt it?) before (but I may be wrong).--211.28.212.240 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese keyboard 

message: I read a review that claimed Eric Roberts' voice (from his portrayal of the Master in the 1996 film) can also be heard during the same sequence where we hear Ainley and Delgado. Can anyone confirm this? It's certainly worth noting, not the least of which because it would be the second concrete bit of evidence (after the on-screen appearance of the Eighth Doctor's image in Human Nature) that the TVM is indeed being treated as canon by the revived series, a topic still of much debate. PS. I just found an uncited reference to this very thing in the Wikipedia article on the Eighth Doctor. If a source is available for this information, it should be added to that article, too. 68.146.41.232 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Roberts reference

message: I've quick-failed this because it's in no way complete - it misses out a lot of production and reception. Some tips before renominating:
#Listen to the commentary.
#Wait for Shannon to do his production account (a couple of weeks).
#Use Google News to find reviews.
Thanks, Will (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: When Martha rushes to inform the Doctor about Yana's fob watch, she starts with, "Think what the Face of Boe said..." Jack (aka Face of Boe) looks at Martha. She continues, "...his dying words..." Jack looks at the Doctor, then stares at the floor. She never completes because the rocket starts to take off shortly thereafter.
Apparently, Jack was paying attention to what Martha was trying to say, which is why his question to the Doctor, "Will I ever be able to die?" seems out of place in Season 3's last episode, 'Last Of The Time Lords'.
Doctor051 (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Buuuuuuut it has never been confirmed that Jack actually IS the Face of Boe.  The writer himself said it was for more of an in-joke and that he'd never confirm or deny it, mainly because it would ruin the premise. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs 

message: Even though I've seen the episode, I can't recall what the 'truth' is.  I think that some people who read this sentence may also wonder this vague allusion is, so could someone include what the truth is? 82.32.11.95 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the "truth" is revealed in this episode when the Master deactivates the fake transmissions. So I just cut that part out. DonQuixote (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The truth behind the existence of 'Utopia' and the fate of the humans seen in this episode is revealed in "Last of the Time Lords"." 

message: There should be some continuity about the Master hearing the sound of drums.  I have not seen very many of the Classic Doctor Who episodes featuring the Master during the Pertwee era, so I don't have the information.  I did read a lot of the books though, and I don't remember any references to this.  However, there IS a reference to him hearing them in the book "Decalog" in the short story "The Duke of Dominoes" by Marc Platt, published in 1994, nine years before the new series started airing.  The reference is made in passing, as a reminder of something the reader should already know, so I am assuming there are more references to it in either previous episodes, audio stories, or novels.  If someone has information and citations for it, please add them.74.139.197.36 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity of the Master hearing the drums needed. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Utopia (Doctor Who). 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/20130128153003/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/06/doctor-who-311-utopia/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/06/doctor-who-311-utopia/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified